T C 

07/)^ 


REPORT 


of the 


Committee on Proceedings to Take 
Possession of the 

COLUMBIA CANAL, ETC. 

UNDER ACT OF MARCH 12,1917 

and 

MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
OF THE COMMITTEE 


THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. 

HUGER SINKLER, 

Chairman of Judiciary Committee of Senate. 

JESSE W. BOYD, 

Chairman Judiciary Committee of House of Representatives. 

NIELS CHRISTENSEN, 
Chairman Finance Committee of Senate. 

J. T. LILES, 

Chairman Ways and Means Committee of House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 


Gonzales and Bryan, State Printers 
Columbia, S. 0. 

1917-18 




























Oass.n r .C' 6 & 5" 



/ 










■■ 




f. 

-r 


% 


• \ 




I 


, 1 




4 


} 


I 


i* 


•I • 



t 









. . • i 
» • 


r-' 

fs- 


. ' • I"' 


“ - *7F .: 

' c.' . r '* 





' -• V‘ , 


' / 



» » 




. Af, 





'•' V 





’’c. 



^ ’ 


• • - 


•> •« 
ft . 


* c 


; \ • 

K 


0 


tjH 

% 

;r 

i ; 


!• j 




t 





• • • ; ^ 

r. .* 





' * "• • f .. 

jk 

• "l » 



f 







< t 

• - , I . 





(J 



/ 


■ ' ,V:(’ ' f J‘ 

( • •-> 


) 


) 


1 


r - 






I. 




\ 






a* 







rf 


t -. ;k \ 



/ 


REPORT 


of the 

Committee on Proceedings to Take 
Possession of the 


COLUMBIA CANAL, ETC. 

UNDER ACT OF MARCH 12,1917 

and 


MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
OF THE COMMITTEE 


THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. 

HUGER SINKLER, 

Chairman of Judiciary Committee of Senate. 

JESSE W. BOYD, 

Chairman Judiciary Committee of House of Representatives. 

NIELS CHRISTENSEN, 
Chairman Finance Committee of Senate. 

J. T. LILES, 

Chairman Ways and Means Committee of House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 



Gonzales and Bryan, State Printers 
Columbia, S. C. 

1917-18 




TC 


0. of D. 

MAR 23 1918 









\ 




: REPORT OF THE CANAL COMMISSION TO THE 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 


. To the General Assembly of South Carolina, 

Columbia, S. C., January 8, 1918. 

To the Honorable the General Assembly of South Carolina: 

Pursuant to the provisions of an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to declare 
that the Columbia Canal and its appurtenances, and the interest of 
the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be tranS' 
ferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of 
Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the 
Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appur¬ 
tenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24, 1887, 
and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the 
State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions 
contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the 
operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” 
approved the 12th day of March, 1917, we, the Attorney General, 
the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House 
of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the 
Senate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the 
House of Representatives, designated by Section 2 of said Act, 
held an informal meeting on the 22d day of March, 1917. There¬ 
after, on the 2d day of April, 1917, the Commission met and organ¬ 
ized by the election of Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, 
as Chairman, and the Hon. J. T. Liles, as Secretary. 

Under and by the provisions of Section 2 of the said Act the 
officers above referred to are empowered, authorized and directed, 
or a majority of them, ninety days after the approval of the Act, 
to make such re-entry for and on behalf of the State as may be 
necessary and proper under the circumstances, and to take such steps 
as may be lawful and proper in the premises to obtain possession 
and control of the property of the said Columbia Canal, its appur¬ 
tenances and the lands held therewith and other improvements 
placed thereon by those in possession, which had become a part and 
parcel of said canal, unless the claimants enter into arrangements 



4 


satisfactory to said officers as herein provided; and further, to 
take such possession, control and direction of the development of 
the water power, originally contemplated in said Acts, and to dis¬ 
pose of same in such way as they may deem advisable and proper. 

Section 3 of the said Act directs the Attorney General, at the 
time provided for the re-entry, or thereafter, to commence such 
proceedings as he may deem proper and advisable in any of the 
Courts of the State to assert the right of the State in and to said 
canal property and the structures and improvements placed thereon, 
which had become a part of said canal, and for the further pro¬ 
tection of said canal from injury and neglect by keeping the same in 
proper condition or repair. He is further empowered and author¬ 
ized to bring such action for damages as the State has suffered by 
reason of the failure of the assignees and conveyees of the Board 
of Trustees of said property to perform the conditions contained 
in said Acts relative to the Columbia Canal and in the several con¬ 
veyances thereafter made to them from the Board of Trustees, 
and the Attorney General was authorized to employ such counsel 
to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this Act with regard 
to bringing such action or in any other action contemplated by this 
Act as he may deem advisable, such counsel to be subject to the 
approval of a majority of the officers mentioned in Section 2. 

Section 5 of the Act provides that the Attorney General and 
other officers therein mentioned, who are authorized to take charge 
and control of the canal, have full power and authority to enter 
into such arrangements or agreements with the parties claiming to 
have any right, title or interest in the premises as they may deem 
advisable and proper to protect the interest of the State, the same, 
however, to be made within ninety days from the approval of this 
Act, and report the same to the General Assembly at its next 
regular session. 

Section 6 authorizes the officers, for the protection of the inter¬ 
est of the State, to receive and make propositions ^or the disposal 
of the canal and its appurtenances and improvements and the 
lands held therewith, or for the completion thereof by any one 
taking over or holding the same according to the plans heretofore 
specified, or upon such modified plans as they deem advisable, 
and for the purpose of extending and completing the said canal to 
insure adequate connection with and into the Congaree River, for 
the purpose of navigation, as well as the development of water 
power, they are authorized to employ competent engineers for 


5 


their information and action with regard to the management and 
disposal of the canal. They are further authorized to enter into 
such arrangements with the mortgage bondholders of the Columbia 
Canal as would protect the interest of the State and the interest of 
said bondholders, such agreements, or arrangements, or action as 
they may deem advisable with regard thereto not to be in conflict 
with any constitutional obligations of the State made by the Acts 
heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds and the 
mortgaging of said property. 

Section 7 of the Act authorizes said officers, or a majority of 
them, to enter into and conclude negotiations with the United 
States Government that will fully insure and protect the naviga^ 
bility of the Columbia Canal from the Congaree to Broad River, 
and in the event such arrangements be consummated, are author¬ 
ized and directed to convey to the United States Government all 
rights, equities, title and interest in the said property which the 
State owns and upon such terms as they may deem proper, and 
the agreement on the part of the United States to locate and main¬ 
tain and operate on the Congaree River, near Columbia, a Federal 
Nitrogen Fixation Plant, and the further agreement of the United 
States Government to promote and conserve the navigability of 
the said Columbia Canal in conformity with the terms of said agree¬ 
ment. 

In accordance with the resolution adopted at the informal meet¬ 
ing of the Commission on March 22, 1917, and preparatory to its 
permanent organization, the Attorney General addressed communi¬ 
cations to the following named parties, who are interested in the 
Columbia Canal property: 

Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Columbia, S. C. 

Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the South Carolina Peni¬ 
tentiary, Columbia, S. C. 

Hon. Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor, and Members of the City Council, 
Columbia, S. C. 

Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia, South Carolina, or its 
Successor or Successors, Columbia, S. C. 

Farmers Loan & Trust Company, New York, N. Y. 

These communications and the answers thereto appear in the 
minutes of the Commission, hereto annexed. 

At a meeting of the Commission, held on April 2, 1917, Mr. B. L, 
Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon, attorneys of the Columbia bar, 
upon invitation of the Commission, appeared before us. The 


6 


employment of these gentlemen to assist the Attorney General 
was duly approved by the Commission, and they have discharged 
the duties imposed upon them. 

In undertaking to carry out the provisions of the Act we have 
been confronted with very serious difficulties by having neither 
appropriation nor authority to borrow money or incur liability. 
We have been unable to have a survey of the canal made by com¬ 
petent engineers and have had no authority to compel the attend¬ 
ance of witnesses and the production of books and papers for the 
purpose of accurately ascertaining how the canal has been hereto¬ 
fore managed. We are satisfied, however, that the canal has, 
from some time prior to 1905, up to 1915, as a source for supplying 
power to the industries in and around the city of Columbia, created 
an income largely in excess of its operating expenses, but since 
the construction of the Parr Shoals plant, hereinafter to be referred 
to, its contracts have been changed and its income has been exces¬ 
sively decreased to such an amount that it does not pay its neces¬ 
sary upkeep, so far as the returns of the Columbia Railway, Gas 
& Electric Company show, all of which have been to the advantage 
of the Parr Shoals Company. We have, nevertheless, proceeded 
to discharge our duties as fully as was practicable notwithstanding 
the circumstances in the case. 

On the 17th day of April, 1917, Mr. J. B. S. Lyle?, representing 
the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, appeared before 
the Commission and made a statement on behalf of that corpora¬ 
tion in which he asked that additional time be allowed that cor¬ 
poration to '‘get down to some definite basis upon which to take up 
the matters under consideration with the Commission.” There¬ 
after, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company made its 
proposal, which appears in the report oL our minutes hereto 
appended, and to which the careful attention of your Honorable 
Body is directed. It will be observed that in none of the letters 
addressed by that company to this Commission is there contained 
any ofifer or suggestion that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 
Company would comply with the conditions and stipulations con¬ 
tained in the Acts of 1887 and 1890, and in the deeds of conveyance 
to said property hereinafter mentioned. On the other hand, their 
proposal was to pay such an insignificant amount of money that 
this Commission could not entertain it, especially so in view of the 
fact that the proposal contained the provision that upon the State’s 
receiving the amount of money ofifered it should complete the canal 


7 


and turn the same over to the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 
Company. It will also be noted that no proposal was made for 
keeping the canal open for navigation either for the part to be 
hereafter constructed down to Rocky Branch and into the Congaree 
River, or for that part which has been in existence since the con¬ 
veyance by the Board of Trustees to the Columbia Water Power 
Company, in 1892; nor is there any proposal to protect and main¬ 
tain the canal as a power producing plant, nor to construct power 
plants to develop said power for use as contemplated by the Act of 
1887. While making such proposals to this Commission, the said 
corporation denied any liability whatsoever on its part to carry out 
any of the terms and provisions of the Act of the Legislature and 
of the conveyances hereinafter referred to and which was con¬ 
sidered essentially to the interest of the State and its citizens with 
regard to the navigability of said canal and the production of 
power. 

The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, through its 
representative and counsel, announced that they had made their 
final and last proposal to the Commission, and the time prescribed 
by statute having elapsed, the proposals of the said company being 
entirely unsatisfactory, no arrangement or adjustment with this cor¬ 
poration could be or was entered into by this Commission. 

On the 10th day of August, 1917, we served a notice upon the 
Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, making demand upon 
it for the possession and control of the Columbia Canal, the 
improvements thereon and appurtenances set forth in said Act, and 
gave notice that we would, on the 20th day of August, 1917, at 
twelve o’clock noon, make re-entry upon, on behalf of the State, 
and take possession and control of said property; that thereafter, 
on the 14th day of August, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 
Company,'by its attorneys, advised us that it denied in toto our 
claims concerning the Columbia Canal and warned and notified 
each of us to refrain from interfering with or trespassing upon its 
possession, management or control, notifying us that each of us 
would be held personally responsible for any interference with or 
trespass committed upon its property or possession. That company 
further claimed that the Act of 1917 was null and void, because it 
was in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of 
South Carolina. 

Being informed that the said corporation would forcibly resist 
a physical re-entry, and we being of the opinion that such re-entry 


8 


was made for and oii behalf of the State as was necessary and 
proper under the circumstances, no effort was made to take force- 
able possession thereof, and the Attorney General and his assist¬ 
ants were directed to take such steps as might be lawful in the 
premises to obtain possession and control of the property of said 
Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, 
and the improvements placed thereon by those in possession which 
have become a part and parcel of said canal, the claimants having 
failed to enter into arrangements satisfactory to us as provided in 
said Act. 

In pursuance of instructions issued by this Commission there¬ 
after, to wit: On the 11th day of December, 1917, an action entitled 
“The State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, against Columbia Railway, 
Gas & Electric Company, a Jl^orporation Created by and Under the 
Laws of South Carolina, Defendant,” was commenced in the Court 
of Common Pleas for Richland county. South Carolina, for the 
purpose of obtaining possession of the said premises described in 
the Act of 1917, and for such income or rentals as the defendant 
may or should have received from withholding the same from the 
20th day of August, 1917. 

Thereafter, and before the expiration of the time for answering 
the complaint, defendant served its notice upon counsel for the 
State that it would seek to remove the said cause from the juris¬ 
diction of the State Court and to the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of South Carolina, upon the ground that such 
action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and that 
the Act, approved the 12th day of March, 1917, was an impairing 
of the contract of the Act of 1887 and deprived the defendant of 
its property without due process of law. In said petition for 
removal on this ground, the said petition being sworn to by the 
President of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Mr. 
Edwin W. Robertson, the following sentence appears: “That the 
said Act of 1917 and all acts and doings of the officers of said State 
of South Carolina thereunder are part and parcel of an effort to 
confiscate the property of this defendant and impair the obligation 
of his contract with said State in violation of the Constitution of the 
United States.” We content ourselves in reply to this suggestion 
by simply saying that such statement is an untrue aspersion of 
the motives of the General Assembly and of the motives and char¬ 
acter of the officers appointed under said Act to carry out its pro¬ 
visions. It is, however, entirely consistent with the conduct of the 


9 


defendant with regard to this property, refusing to fulfil its obli¬ 
gations and contract entered into by it with the State and its con- 
veyees, for the Journals and the Acts of the General Assembly 
will show that for more than ten years, commencing with a reso¬ 
lution passed at the General Assembly directing Governor Ansel 
to investigate the management and control of said canal, and also a 
further and later resolution, passed in 1911, asking for a further 
investigation into this matter upon the complaint of Ihe citizens of 
Spartanburg, Union, Fairfield, Lexington and Richland counties, 
with regard to the dereliction of this company in not fulfilling the 
obligations of its contract with the State, contained in the Acts and 
conveyances under which it claims to own, control and manage the 
canal property. Further, there was introduced a Concurrent Reso¬ 
lution, authorizing the Attorney General to take action upon this 
particular matter, but, having as a Concurrent Resolution no force 
of law to declare a re-entry so as to make efifectual any proceedings 
he might deem proper to take, the matter was postponed. 

In 1912 this defendant, of its own voluntary accord, caused to 
be introduced into the General Assembly an Act, hereafter men¬ 
tioned, providing for the construction of a dam at the confluence 
of the Broad and Saluda Rivers, so as to create a very large power, 
which would assist the navigable features insisted upon in the Act 
of 1887, and in response to their own request an Act was passed 
in 1912 (see 17 Stat., 779 ),, which Act, however, expressly provides, 
as will be seen by reference thereto, that the company should 
develop the property as contemplated by the Act of 1887 and all 
amendatory Acts, and should be given such time tr do so as any 
Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine to be reasonable or 
practicable, showing the intention of the Legislature in a most 
solemn form that its great purpose of making a navigable connec¬ 
tion between waters of the Congaree and Broad Rivers should be 
fully carried into efifect. Your committee was selected by the Legis¬ 
lature under the Act of 1917 without request or solicitation on 
their part and without their knowledge. 

At the same time a demurrer was filed by the defendant in the 
action that was brought in which it appears that the defendant 
claims that it is not subject to any obligation whatsoever under 
said Act on account of the lapse of time. This is in substance to 
declare that this company holds absolutely the property without 
performing any of the conditions of the Act under which it acquired 


10 


the property, even in the teeth of the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of our State, delivered in 1909 and 1910. 

Under the provisions of Section 7 of tlie Act of 1917 this Com¬ 
mission took up with the authorities in Washington the matter of 
securing the location of a United States Government Nitrogen 
Fixation Plant under the terms of the Federal Act known as the 
Smith Nitrate Bill, and for the purpose of turning over the canal 
property to the United States under the terms and conditions set 
forth in said Act. Our attempts to attain this end have been futile. 
Our communications to the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary 
of the Interior and the War Department in Washington were duly 
acknowledged, but so far as we are advised no further or favorable 
action was taken thereon. 

On May 23d, m Charleston, this Commission conferred with the 
engineer in charge of improvements of the rivers and harbors in 
this State, and discussed the steps to be taken to secure a report by 
the War Department of the value to the public ot the proposed 
extension of the Columbia Canal. 

Pursuant to a resolution adopted on account of this conference. 
Senator Sinkler and Representative Boyd were directed to go t> 
Washington to secure the assistance of the State Congressional 
Delegation in having Congress pass legislation necessary to have a 
full and complete survey and report upon the prospective com¬ 
pletion of the Columbia Canal made by army engbieers. Repre 
sentative Boyd went to Washington and upon his return filed his. 
written report thereof, which is found in the minutes of this Com¬ 
mission. 

In order to secure such information as we could under preseiit 
circumstances as lo the condition of the Columbia Canal, the Attor¬ 
ney General engaged the services of Mr. Alfred Wallace, of the 
city of Columbia, to examine the property and to make a report 
thereon. Mr. Wallace duly reported to this Commission the con¬ 
dition of the dam across Broad River, the locks, the canal bank and 
the distribution of power; a copy of said report is attached to our 
minutes. 

It appears that the dam across Broad River is a crib dam; that 
the flooring in five places is entirely gone and in several other places, 
partially gone and that the dam in some places is out of line; that 
the boat way around the locks leading from the canal into the river 
is stopped up with an old flatboat, completely blocking the opening. 
The metal roof and sides of the structure covering the locks is. 


11 


rusted out, leaving holes in the roof and sides of the building 
exposing the gate timber and iron to the weather. Near the C., 
N. & L. trestle there appears to be a hole in the bank of the canal 
two feet wide and four feet long. The riprap on this point is 
washed up in places and in several places the bank has settled. 
The new bank put up after the 1915 freshet is being washed by 
rains; this bank is also settled in places. There are two bridges 
across the canal, one at the Duck Mill and the other at the city 
water works. The water in the canal from the Duck Mill power 
plant to Gervais street is very quiet, causing a deposit of mud in the 
canal in front of the street railway power plant (due to the watei 
gates at this power plant which were constructed by the Columbia 
Water Power Company, being closed), and the tailrace of the 
street railway power plant is being filled up with mud and sand 
Power is not distributed from this plant (the one constructed by 
the Columbia Water Power Company, near Gervais street), but 
from a distributing power station erected by the street railway 
company into which all current from Parr Shoals power plant, the 
canal and the steam plant is distributed to the city of Columbia, 
the electric railway, five cotton mills, fjur phosphate mills, three 
cotton seed oil mills, the State buildings and Camp Jackson. 

We have no information to ascertain how much of this power 
comes from the Columbia Canal and how much from Parr Shoals, 
but we feel entirely safe in stating that such power is allowed to 
be developed by the Columbia Canal is used only in cases of 
emergency and to supplement that furnished by Pair Shoals, and 
from our own observation apparently the canal as intended for navi¬ 
gation and for producing power is being gradually, if not absolutelv, 
abandoned. 

We are further informed that the contracts entered into by the 
Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company with various industrial 
and other enterprises in Columbia and vicinity for power to be fur¬ 
nished from the Columbia Canal, have been changed by the Colum¬ 
bia Railway, Gas & Electric Company to Parr Shoals, which latter 
company has been for sometime past supplying such power and only 
so much of the power of the Columbia Canal used as is necessary 
to make up temporary or occasional deficiencies from Parr Shoals. 
Even the contract with the State for power for lighting its own 
public buildings is being supplied from ihe Parr Shoals power 
station and not from water flowing in the canal. This is also true 
of the city of Columbia. It appears beyond doubt that when the 


12 


sale of this property by the Columbia V^/ater Power Company to 
the present claimants as owners was made that the canal was the 
only water source for the generation of electric current, which 
supplied the industries in and around Columbia and which even 
turned the wheels of the electric railway cars upon the streets of 
Columbia, and that such contracts which were very valuable and 
extended for long terms of years were transferred to the present 
railway company who have by combination with the Parr Shoah^ 
Company transferred them at the expense and injury of the canal 
property to the latter company. 

We call attention to a letter of Mr. Thornwell McMaster, a 
resident and citizen of the city of Columbia, and one thoroughly 
acquainted with the Columbia Canal, of date December 28, 1916, 
addressed to the Attorney General, which letter was received 
prior to the meeting of the General Assembly which passed the Acl 
of March 12, 1917, and which shows the condition at that time of 
the canal in which the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company 
had allowed it to become. This letter Is attached to our minutes 
and marked “A.’’ 

Seventeen iron towers have been erected on the bank of the cana! 
from the city limits down to Gervais street. These towers carrv 
transmission lines for power from Parr Shoals and across the canal 
to a distribution plant located near by. 

The Columbia Mills Company, by conveyance and permission of 
the Columbia Water Power Company, located on the western bank 
of the canal, opposite the Columbia Mill? factory, a power house 
and leased a certain amount—1,800 horse power of water power, and 
while the authority of the Columbia Water Power Company to con¬ 
vey a section of the canal bank may be doubted, we feel that it i.^ 
to the interest of the State, subject to the right that was reserved to 
it for its own development of the canal, that they should not be 
disturbed in their contract or operation. Of course, the State is 
entitled to claim from the Mills Company, whenever its rights have 
been completely established, the income for water power contracted 
for by that company. We apprehend, therefore, that no occasion 
will arise where there will be any dispute with that company in 
regard to this matter. Nor in the diversion of this canal property 
do we apprehend that there will arise any difficulty with the city of 
Columbia, who, upon the sale of the canal by the Board of Trus¬ 
tees to the Columbia Water Power Company, reserved a location 
for its pumping station, inasmuch as the Act itself gives to that 


13 


company 500 horse power of water power for its use. The 500 
horse power of water power reserved for the State of South Caro¬ 
lina was acquired by the old Columbia Electric Street Railway 
Company under a lease which was ratified by the General Assembly. 
(See 21 Stat., 94.) This lease, however, the Superintendent of the 
Penitentiary has failed to locate. The best information we can 
obtain with regard to it is that it was subsequently assigned by the 
Street Railway Company to the Columbia Water Power Company 
and by the Columbia Water Power Company assigned to the pres¬ 
ent Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company. This contract, 
we suppose, is still in effect and enforceable against the company. 

Subsequent to the approval of the Act of 1917, parties made 
inquiry as to terms and conditions upon which they might purchase 
or take over the canal and the property held therewith. It was 
apparent, however, that nothing could be done along that line until 
the canal had come under control of the State. Therefore the 
Commission considered it advisable to take no active steps to dis¬ 
pose of the property at this time. 

That there can be no doubt as to the position of the State with 
regard to this property and its right thereunder, we refer to the 
case of the State v. Columbia Water Power Company, 82 S. C., 
181, to which the defendant in the case which has been brought 
was a party. Under a solemn judicial inquiry and investigation by 
our own State Supreme Court the facts with regard to this canai 
were settled and determined; hence we have no hesitancy in sub¬ 
mitting a history of the canal, taken from that decision, to your 
Honorable Body as settled in the highest Court of this State. 

“Passing by the general appropriations for internal improve¬ 
ments, made by the State from time to time, the Appropriation Act 
of 1882 contains this provision, ‘on the Columbia Canal, locks, dam 
and works attached thereto, the sum of forty thousand dollars,’ 6 
Stat., 201. An Act of 20th December, 1823, relating to the man¬ 
agement of the several canals of the State, requires the appointment 
of a Board of Commissioners for the Columbia, Saluda and Bull 
Sluice Canals, and punishment for any person who ‘shall obstruct 
the navigation of any of said canals,’ 6 Stat., 214. The rate of 
toll for boats passing through any part of the Columbia Canal was_ 
prescribed by Act of 20th December, 1828, 6 Stat., 370, and by Act 
of 19th December, 1833, 6 Stat., 493. The sum of forty thousand 
dollars was appropriated in 1836 for the completion of the Colum¬ 
bia Canal from Young’s Mill to Bull’s Sluice, 6 Stat., 567. The 


14 


canal was leased to F. W. Green for twenty-one years with authority 
to collect toll, by Act of 19th December, 1843; but the statute con¬ 
templates that it shall be kept up by him for purposes of navigation, 
11 Stat., 304. By Acts of 1865, 13 Stat., 293, and of 1888, 14 
Stat., 83, commissioners were authorized to sell the canal, and one of 
the conditions of the sale was to be ‘that the same shall be kept open 
and in proper order for boating purposes (free of all charge for 
toll or otherwise) as far as the same is now used.’ A sale having 
been made and the purchaser having failed to comply with its 
terms by Act of 14th February, 1878, 16 Stat., 360, the General 
Assembly declared the title had reverted to the State. The Act of 
12th March, 1878, 16 Stat., 444, provides for a commission to take 
possession of the canal, and control and direct its development, 
giving them authority to lease sites for factories. The design to 
develop the water power of the canal for manufacturing purposes 
is still more prominent in subsequent legislation. By the Act of 
8th February, 1882, 17 Stat., 855, the property was turned over to 
the Board of Directors of the Penitentiary with authority to 
improve and develop the water power by constructing a dam and 
otherwise, but the purpose to reserve the right of navigation is 
made evident by the provision that the right of condemnation of 
property for improvement of the canal is conferred ‘for the sake of 
the public improvement contemplated in the construction of the 
said canal and the better navigation of said Broad and Congarea 
Rivers, and the transportation of supplies to market.’ 

The State, on 24th December, 1887, transferred the canal to 
Trustees for the city of Columbia, the Statute, 19 Stat., 1090, by 
which the transfer was made containing these provisions: 

Section 2. ‘That the said Board of Trustees are hereby authorized 
and directed, for the development of the said canal, to take into 
their possession the said property with all its appurtenances; and 
for the purpose of navigation, for providing an adequate water 
power for the use of the penitentiary and for other purposes here¬ 
inafter named, they are hereby authorized, empowered and directed 
to improve and develop the same. 

Section 3. ‘That in order to improve and develop the power of the 
said canal for navigation, to furnish the city of Columbia with an 
adequate supply of water and other hydraulic purposes, they are 
authorized to construct a dam across Broad River, etc.’ 

******** ** 


15 


Section 5. ‘That the said canal shall be open for navigation free of 
charges by the said Board of Trustees, the State reserving the right 
to make such improvements in the canal as may be necessary to pro¬ 
tect navigation through the canal more rapidly than can be accom¬ 
plished by the Board under this Act: Provided, That said Board of 
Trustees or lessees of the water power are indemnified against any 
damage arising therefrom. 

Section 6. ‘That the said Board of Trustees are required to build 
only one bridge over the canal, to wit: One on Gervais street. That 
the said trustees or assigns shall not be required to build any draws 
or passageways through any other bridges across the canal, unless 
they voluntarily build additional bridges, and draws or passageways 
therein shall become necessary for purpose of navigation; and if 
such draws or passageways or bridges other than those above pro¬ 
vided for should be built, they shall not be required to work thei 
same except for their own benefit, nor shall the> be required lo 
attend to any locks which may be built.’ The duties of the Trustees 
in developing the canal for navigation are again set out in the amend¬ 
ment of 1890, 20 Stat., 967. 

On 11th January, 1892, the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal conveyed by deed to the Columbia Water Power Company 
the canal and its apputerances, subject to all the conditions, duties, 
limitations, and liabilities imposed by the statute under which the 
State turned over the property to the Trustees of the canal. The 
Columbia Water Power Company went into possession under this 
conveyance and completed the canal from its soiuce at Bull’s Sluice 
to the north side of Gervais street. Afterwards, on first of July, 
1905, the Columbia Water Power Company by its deed made a like 
conveyance of the property to the Columbia Electric Street Railway, 
Light and Power Company, subject to the same duties, conditions, 
limitations and liabilities. The Columbia Electric Street Railway, 
Light and Power Company is now in possession of the property and 
it is by virtue of a contract with that corporation that the city of 
Columbia is building the bridge or structure to bear across the canal 
the pipes through which the city intends to pump water from the 
Saluda River into the city reservoir.” 

The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company was a partv 
defendant in the above entitled action in which the Court declared 
that it was its duty to keep the said canal open for navigation free 
of charge, the State reserving the right to make such improvements 
in the canal as may be necessary to promote navigation, etc., and 


16 


that it should be compelled to remove the obstruction caused by the 
erection of a bridge and pipes for the Columbia city waterworks 
constructed by reason of a contract entered into v/ith the Columbi'V 
Railway, Gas & Electric Company and the city of Columbia. 

The above entitled case was twice again before the Supreme Court 
(see 85 S. C., 113 and 90 S. C., 568) in which latter decision it was 
ordered that the city of Columbia be allowed eight months trom the 
filing of that decree for the removal of its bridge over the Columbia 
canal, and that the Columbia Street Railway, Eight and Power Com¬ 
pany, within three months of the filing of thai decree, open the 
Columbia canal by putting the locks in workable condition at the 
Broad River entrance into the canal. 

It will be noted that in the above decisions by the Supreme Court 
it is held that the Columbia Water Power Company took the canal by 
deed of conveyance from the Board of Trustees, subject to all the 
conditions, duties, limitations and liabilities imposed by the statute 
under which the State turned over the property to the trustees of the 
canal; that thereafter, upon the conveyance by the Columbia Water 
Power Company of the property to the Columbia Electric Street 
Railway, Eight and Power Company (now the Columbia Railway, 
Gas & Electric Company) the same was subject to the same duties, 
conditions, limitations and liabilities. 

Under Section 3 of the Act of December 24, 1890, 20 Stat., 967, 
it is provided: 

Section 3. “That in order to improve and develop the power of 
said canal for navigation, to furnish the city of Columbia with an 
adequate supply of water and other hydraulic purposes, they are 
authorized to construct a dam across Broad River at, above or below 
the head of the present canal, as by survey already made or here¬ 
after to be made may be deemed advisable for the development of 
said water power,” and the said section further prescribes the fol¬ 
lowing conditions to be performed by the grantees: '‘Provided, That 
the canal be so enlarged as to carry a body of water one hundred and 
fifty feet wide at the top of the water, one hundred and ten feet wide 
at the bottom, and ten feet deep, and shall develop at least ten thou¬ 
sand horse power at the south side of Gervais street: Provided, 
further. That for a distance of about fifty-three chains southerly 
from the south line of Gervais street the minimum dimensions of the 
said canal shall be one hundred and fifty feet width at normal level 
of the surface of the water in the canal when completed, one hun¬ 
dred and ten feet width at the bottom and ten feet depth; thence 


17 


southerly for fourteen chains the canal shall be uniformly diminished 
so as to have the minimum dimensions at the southerly end of said 
fourteen chains of one hundred and twenty feet width at normal 
level of the surface of the water in the canal when completed, eighty 
feet width at the bottom and ten feet depth; and these latter mini¬ 
mum dimensions shall continue to the terminus of the canal, a dis¬ 
tance of about sixty-seven chains: Provided, That a suitable fish¬ 
way for the free passage of fish be constructed in the said dam.” 
That along the line of the lower reaches of the canal, as and a 
part of it, was a basin of about two acres for the anchorage of boats, 
which said basin still exists and is a part of the canal. 

The width of the canal below Senate street is indicated by old 
maps to be sixty-six feet, except where this basin is located, and at 
Holmes’ Lake, over which there is now a railroad trestle. The Act, 
however, provides for the acquisition of necessary width required 
by Acts of 1887 and 1890, and of deflections from the line of the old 
canal, if the same be advisable, so that there can be no contention 
arising with regard to the power and authority existing for the 
present Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company to perform 
their obligations and duties for lack of such authority or right. 

Under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1917, this Com¬ 
mission was given authority to enter into such arrangements with the 
mortgage holders of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest 
of the State and the interest of the bondholders, and to enter into 
such agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they deem 
advisable with regard thereto which will not be in conflict with any 
contractual obligations of the State made made by the Acts hereto¬ 
fore passed with regard to the issue of said bonds and the mortgag¬ 
ing of said property. 

It appears that the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal at a 
meeting held in the city of Columbia, in the State of South Carolina, 
the 27th day of January, 1888, in accordance with the provisions of 
the Act of 1887 and for the purpose of constructing and developing 
the said canal, did duly authorize and issue a series of bonds amount¬ 
ing to two hundred thousand dollars, to be numbered from one to 
three hundred, inclusive, and bear interest from the date thereof 
at the rate of six per cent, per annum. The bonds numbered from 
one to fifty, inclusive, to be of the denomination of one thousand 
dollars and to bear date February 1, A. D. 1888, and to be payable 
January 1, 1918. The bonds numbered from fifty-one to one hun¬ 
dred and fifty, inclusive, to be of the denomination of five hundred 


18 


dollars and to bear date February 1, A. D. 1888, and to be payable 
January 1, A. D. 1918. The bonds numbered from one hundred and 
fifty-one to two hundred, inclusive, to be of the denomination of one 
thousand dollars and to bear date of January 1, A. D. 1889, and to 
be payable January 1, A. D. 1919, with provision for semiannual 
payment of interest coupons thereon on the first days of January and 
July of each and every year until the maturity of said bonds. 

It therefore appears that $100,000.00 of the above mentioned 
bonds will fall due on the first day of January, 1918, and that the 
remaining $100,000.00 will continue to bear interest during the year 
1918 and become due and payable on January 1, 1919. 

Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1887, 19 Stat. 
1090, it was provided that on the back of each and every bond shall 
be printed the following words: ^‘The City of Columbia, South 
Carolina, guarantees the prompt payment of each and every coupon 
attached to this bond.” 

On December 24, 1887, 19 Stat. 1887, the Legislature passed an 
Act to authorize the city of Columbia to guarantee and pay the 
coupons on the bonds to be issued by the Board of Trustees of the 
Columbia Canal under an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to incorporate the 
Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to said Board 
the canal with the lands now held therewith and its appurtenances, 
and to develop the same.” That in pursuance of the provisions of 
this Act the city of Columbia did duly guarantee the payment of the 
coupons attached to the said bonds. 

We are informed that the said coupons have been duly presented 
to the Treasurer of the city of Columbia when due and that they 
were paid, the funds for payment thereof being received by the city 
of Columbia from the Columbia Water Power Company, the Colum¬ 
bia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, and its suc¬ 
cessor, Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company. We have 
been unable to ascertain at this date who are the present holders of 
the bonds and none or them have communicated with or appeared 
before us. The officers of the city are not informed as to who pre¬ 
sents the coupons for payment. We, therefore, have not been able 
to take up the matters referred to in the last above mentioned section 
of the Act of 1917 with the bondholders for the above reasons and 
for the further reason that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 
Company has given no information as to who are the holders of the 
bonds at present, and in the absence of their furnishing the voluntary 


19 


information we are unable to force from said company the necessary 
information. 

We are advised by the Attorney General that under Section 23 of 
the Act of 1887, as amended, the purchaser took said property sub¬ 
ject to all the duties and liabilities imposed thereby and subject to 
all contracts, liabilities and obligations made and entered into with 
said Board prior to such sale and transfer. In the conveyances to 
the Columbia Water Power Company provision is expressly provided 
for the securing of these obligations by said company and under the 
conveyance of the Columbia Water Power Company to the pur¬ 
chaser, the present claimant, they expressly agree to assume and 
discharge the said bonds and mortgage, and provision is made by 
the mortgage made by the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light 
and Power Company, the former name of the present company, to 
the Mercantile Trust and Deposit Company for the payment and 
retirement of said bonds, said mortgage being dated the first day of 
July, 1905, the date of the conveyance from the Columbia Water 
Power Company to the said Street Railway Company, and in the 
mortgage of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric to the Knicker¬ 
bocker Trust Company there is likewise provision made for the pay¬ 
ment and retirement of said bonds under their assumption and 
agreement to pay the same, both of said mortgages and the convey¬ 
ance referred to being recorded in the office of Mesne Conveyance 
for Richland county, to which access may be readily had. It is 
apparent, therefore, the obligation and duty of said company to pay 
the principal and interest upon said bonds. 

We find that the contract made by the Board of Trustees of the 
Columbia Canal with the directors of the Penitentiary has in every 
respect been violated; that they have failed to carry out the two 
great purposes moving the State to sell, to wit: to widen and enlarge 
the canal and to join the waters of Congaree and Broad rivers for 
commerce passing from the seacoast to the city of Columbia, and 
points beyond and to the upcountry, and for commerce from the 
upcountry to the city of Columbia and points to the seacoast and to 
develop the water power as provided by the Acts of the Legislature. 

The corporation now in possession of this property denies any 
and all liability to carry out the above conditions of the deed under 
which it took. It has failed to keep the property in condition for 
navigation, even that part of the canal constructed prior to the date 
of its acquisition, and has disregarded and ignored the order of the 
Supreme Court of South Carolina to remove obstructions at the 


20 


locks on Broad River, and to remove the bridges obstructing the 
navigation of the canal. 

It is true the General Assembly did in 1914, after the city had by 
permission of the Street Railway Company, obstructed the canal 
pass an Act authorizing the city of Columbia to maintain the bridge 
across the canal, mentioned in the decisions of the Court heretofore 
cited, but that was a mere temporary permission and it was in view 
of the hope, if not the promises of the owners, that the completion 
of the canal was to commence in a reasonable time thereafter, for 
the Act specifically states that such privilege shall extend only to 
such time as construction work on the completion of said canal 
shall actually begin, or until this Act shall be repealed or modified, 
28 Stats., 881. In effect the Act of 1917 authorizing this Commis¬ 
sion to take steps to complete the canal as originally designed or 
upon such plans as are thereafter specified was a repeal of such 
license or permission, even if we assume that the Legislature could 
in view of our Constitution authorize this navigable water to be 
obstructed against the rights of the citizens of the State. It (the 
Columbia Railway, Gas &' Electric Company) has failed to keep 
the banks of the canal in repair, which are now in a dangerous con¬ 
dition so that any considerable freshet would imperil the entire 
property. It has failed to develop the horse power for industrial 
purposes either direct or by electricity. 

It is the opinion of this Commission, from all the facts we are 
able to ascertain, that it has been long since practicable for those in 
possession of the canal to perform the obligations of the contract; 
in fact, the General Assembly at its session in 1912 passed an Act 
authorizing them to build a dam at the confluence of the Saluda and 
Broad Rivers to give the necessary water power and to confer upon 
the said corporation authority, privileges and power, which, had they 
been accepted, would have relieved the said corporation of die per¬ 
formance of a large part of its contract and would have carried out 
all obligations of the said company to the State. And apparently 
the company was intending to do so because ample provision is 
made for the raising of the money by the issue of bonds in the mort¬ 
gage to Knickerbocker Trust Company hereinabove referred to, to 
the record of which reference may be duly had. We have reason 
to believe that income from power has been sufficient to justify their 
undertaking years ago this work. 

Instead of taking advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1912, 
the persons in control of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 


21 


Company constructed a dam and hydro electric power plant at Parr 
Shoals, and in so far as we are informed, the construction of that 
dam and the development of the power at that point has substan¬ 
tially, if not completely, destroyed navigation in the Congaree and 
parts of the Santee Rivers by reason of the necessary ponding of 
water to operate Parr Shoals. 

It was at one time supposed that for navigation purposes it would 
not be necessary or expedient to extend the canal throughout its 
entire length to Rocky Branch, but as your Commission is now 
informed, the engineers of the United States in charge of the 
improvements upon said rivers have reached a conclusion, contained 
in their reports, that navigation to be made properly serviceable and 
ndequate for the commerce upon the river, the canal should be 
extended from Gervais street to its entrance into the Congaree 
River near Rocky Branch. That such a reference to the reports of 
these engineers will bear out these statements with regard to this 
matter, however, we hereto attach a letter written by Mr. White- 
scarver, the United States local engineer in charge of the work 
with regard to this matter, and we call attention to the interest in the 
navigation features of the canal and Congaree River to what is now 
a])pearing in the public prints with regard to the expediency and 
benefits that will accrue to the city and to the people of the State at 
large from the opening of this canal and the joining of the waters 
of the Congaree and Broad Rivers. 

In the opinion of this Commission there can be no doubt that the 
full benefits, contemplated by the State of South Carolina in all of 
iier Acts now appearing upon the statute books, cannot be obtained 
without a completion of the canal as designed to the mouth of Rocky 
Branch, and the maintaining of the canal open free of charge to the 
citizens of our State. 

As above stated, an action has been commenced to recover posses¬ 
sion of this property and to assert the right of the State thereto. 
We do not consider it a matter of propriety for us to express our¬ 
selves in an enlarged statement with regard to the rights of the 
State in this litigation, or to anticipate the Courts in the opinions to 
be rendered. It is sufficient to say that we are advised in the course 
of our conduct and by our counsel, that this Act declaring the for¬ 
feiture and reversion to the State, was a valid exercise by the Legis¬ 
lature of its power in the premises and was in accordance with prec¬ 
edence in this State. In fact, with regard to this same canal, in 
1878, after it had ben conveyed to William Sprague, who was to 


22 


enlarge and develop the same and keep it open for navigation, but 
who failed to do so, the Legislature declared as follows: “The title 
to the premises conveyed by the said deed of conveyance has 
reverted to the State,” and under authority thereof subsequently 
took possession of said canal. (16 Stat., 360). And, not only this, 
we are advised by our counsel that it is an old and recognized form 
for a State declaring its right to re-enter by reason of the violation 
of the conditions of the conveyance and to revest its title, to pass 
just such statute, and the same have been, time and time again, 
. upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

It is evident from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act that two 
actions were contemplated to be brought against the parties claim¬ 
ing to own this property, but it will be seen by reference to such 
Act that the Legislature intended to deal with the company in pos¬ 
session of and claiming to own said property in the most considerate 
way, for the statute provides that the claimants may, within ninety 
days after the approval of the Act, enter into arrangements satis¬ 
factory to the officers of the State, in which event, of course, no 
resort to the Courts would be had. The first action contemplated 
was for the recovery of the possession of the property, upon the 
failure of such adjustment by the Commission with those in posses¬ 
sion. The second action contemplated was for the purpose of 
recovering damages from the pers'ons liable to the State, which had 
been incurred by reason of the failure of these parties claiming 
under the Board of Trustees to perform the conditions in said Acts 
and the obligations assumed by them, and of their permitting the 
canal to become in the condition it was represented to be, and as 
we find it to be, and for the destruction of the waters of the canal as 
a source of power to be sold to the industries in and around Colum¬ 
bia and for the public buildings in the city. At the time the same 
passed from the Columbia Water Power Company, that company, 
we are informed, had under contract the supplying of almost the 
whole power to the city of Columbia and her mills and other indus¬ 
tries, as well as to the State. These contracts have been diverted, 
the waters in the canal have substantially ceased to be utilized, and 
the Parr Shoals Power Company has become the beneficiary of the 
actions taken by this company; and, we are informed by the return 
made to the proper officers of the State, that they have an interlock¬ 
ing directorate and contracts between them. It may, in the course 
of an investigation, become most manifest and without doubt that 
the directors of these two companies have combined to the injurv 


23 


of the State with regard to the management of this property, con¬ 
trary to our statute laws, as well as in violation of the contracts of 
the one, and may have made themselves personally liable. We 
have not felt, however, until we shall have reached a certain point 
in the first litigation, that we should direct this new action to be 
brought, which, when brought, will involve the question of recovery 
of a large amount of money in favor of the State against the afore¬ 
said companies and parties. 

In view of the above statements and opinions which have been 
reached, this Commission would respectfully recommend: 

1. That a vigorous prosecution of the proceedings now commenced 
and such as are contemplated further by the Act of March 12, 1917. 
be made, and that sufficient appropriation be made to pay the 
expenses necessary to carry on such prosecution. 

2. That this Commission deems it necessary that power be con¬ 
ferred upon it to investigate and inquire into all matters and things 
done by the present claimants and their predecessors, conveyees of 
the Board of Trustees of said property, as to the management, con¬ 
trol and disposition thereof, and the disposition of the rents, income 
and revenue derived from said property; and that it is desirable to 
inquire into all connections, relationship and association the said 
conveyees, their officers and agents of said property may have had or 
now have with any and all corporations and persons, their officers 
and agents, operating, owning or controlling any other corporation 
engaged in the production of power or light, and for that purpose 
they recommended that a Bill be introduced into the General Assem¬ 
bly, and that the members of this Commission urge its passage. 


24 


MINUTES OF COMMISSION ON CANAL. 


The Commission met, pursuant to the call of the Attorney Gen¬ 
eral, on March 22, 1917, at eleven o’clock a. m. 

Present: Attorney General Peeples, Senator Huger Sinkler and 
Hon. J. T. Liles. 

After an informal discussion of the terms of the Act and the 
necessary preliminary steps to be taken, the following Resolution 
was offered by Mr. Sinkler and unanimously adopted: 

“On motion of Mr. Sinkler, it was moved and carried that the 
Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisable, to communi¬ 
cate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the 
Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such infor¬ 
mation as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as 
he deems sufficient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take 
such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the 
provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying 
into effect its provisions, and to report the same to this Commission 
at its next meeting.” 

Mr. Liles moved that the Attorney General be requested to get u]) 
all Acts relative to the canal, and such other data as is available, and 
have same typewritten or printed, and that each member of the 
Commission be furnished a copy of same, which motion was unani¬ 
mously carried. 

A motion was offered by Mr. Sinkler, and adopted, that the Attor¬ 
ney General notify all interested parties that a hearing would be 
granted them at four o’clock p. m. on Monday, the 2d day of April, 
1917. 

A motion was offered by Mr. Liles, and adopted, that the Attor¬ 
ney General address a communication to each member of the Com¬ 
mission notifying them of the next meeting and the importance of 
the presence of each member thereof, also that a permanent Chair¬ 
man and Secretary would be elected at that meeting. 

On motion of Mr. Liles, the Commission adjourned to meet at 
eleven o’clock a. m., on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. 



25 


The following correspondence was had: 

March 28, 1917. 

Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, Columbia, South 
Carolina. 

Gentlemen: By an Act of the General Assembly of the State of 
South Carolina, entitled 

“An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ 
tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia 
Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An 
Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with 
the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to 
develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts 
supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State 
by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions 
contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the 
operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” 
approved on the 12th day of March, 1917,— 
it was declared that the conditions of the Act of the General Assem¬ 
bly of the State of South Carolina, approved the 24th day of Decen\- 
ber, 1887, and the Acts supplemental and amendatory thereof,, had 
not been complied with, but that the same had been disregarded, 
and by reason thereof the right, title and interest of the State to the 
said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held there¬ 
with,. so transferred by virtue of said Acts, had been forfeited an.d 
reverted to the State. 

Further, hy said Act, the Attorney General and the Chairmen of 
the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the 
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, were empowered, authorized and directed, or a majority 
of them, ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, to make 
such re-entry for and in behalf of the State as may be necessary and 
proper under the circumstances, and to take such steps as may be 
lawful and proper in the premises to obtain possession and control of 
the property of the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the 
lands held therewith, and the improvements placed thereon by those 
in possession, etc.; and, further, to take such possession, control and 
direction of the development of the water power originally contem¬ 
plated by said Act, and to dispose of the same, in such way as they 
may deem advisable and proper, for the interest of the State. 


26 


For your information, and to save the trouble of directing your 
attention in detail to the provisions of said Act, I hereto attach to 
this letter a copy thereof. 

At a meeting held on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attor¬ 
ney General, it was resolved by the majority of the officers above 
mentioned, 

“That the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisa¬ 
ble, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by the 
provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to 
ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises, 
and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all per¬ 
sons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his 
judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as 
may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, 
and to report the same to this Commission at its next meeting.” 

It was also further resolved: 

“That the Attorney General notify all interested parties that 
a hearing would be granted them at four o’clock p. m. on Mon¬ 
day, the 2d day of April, 1917,” 

and, a call for a meeting of the Commission was passed for further 
action with regard to their duties, and to take such steps under the 
Act as they may deem proper, to be held on Monday, the 2d day of 
April, 1917. 

In accordance with this resolution, and said Act, I beg to give to 
you the notice contemplated by said resolution, and to call to your 
attention especially the provisions contained in paragraphs three, 
five, six and seven of said Act. The officers above mentioned will 
be very glad for you, or through any representative that you may 
select, to appear before them at the said date and make such state¬ 
ments and proposals, with regard to the action contemplated in said 
sections, or other sections of the statute, as you may see fit to make, 
and to assure you that they shall be very glad to take up and co-n- 
sider any matter that you may desire to present to them. 

If the time which has been fixed for the next meeting of the Com¬ 
mission be not sufficient, I will thank you to indicate what time, 
within a reasonable limit, you would desire to appear before the 
Commission. 

I am. 

Yours very truly, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Attorney General. 


27 


Columbia, S. C., March 30, 1917. 
Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. 

My Dear Sir: I have your letter of March 28th with reference to 
the Columbia Canal, and informing me that there will be a meeting 
of the Commission created by the Act recently passed by the General 
Assembly, on April 2d. 

You suggest that if this day does not give us sufficient time, that I 
express a wish for some other day. It will be necessary for me tc 
confer with other interests before appearing before your Commis¬ 
sion, which I am arranging to do on April 12th, which is the earliest 
day such a meeting can be arranged, and as soon as that meeting has 
been concluded I will write you requesting that you call a meeting 
of your Commission. 

In the meantime, we should be very glad to meet with your Com¬ 
mission at any convenient date that you may suggest for a discussion 
of this matter, but I deem it only fair to advise you that I will be in 
no position to make, or receive, any definite proposition until I have 
received the authority to act, which I expect to be given me at the 
meeting above referred to. 

You understand, of course, that this communication is privileged 
and is not to be construed or considered as any admission of any 
obligation on our part. 

Yours very truly, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 

By Edwin W. Robertson, 

President. 


March 28, 1917. 

Hon. Arthur K. Sanders, Superintendent of the South Carolina Pen¬ 
itentiary, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Dear Sir: On or about the 17th day of May, 1892, the Board of 
Directors of the South Carolina Penitentiary authorized the Super¬ 
intendent of the South Carolina Penitentiary to enter into a con¬ 
tract with the Columbia Electic Street Railway, Light and Power 
Company, the predecessor of the Columbia Railway, Gas and Elec¬ 
tric Company, its successor or successors, for the development 
and utilization of the five hundred horse power of water power 
reserved by the State of South Carolina for the use of the South 
Carolina Penitentiary along the line of the Columbia Canal; and the 
said Superintendent, pursuant to the resolution of the said Board, 
did, on the 26th day of May, 1892, execute a contract with said com- 



28 


pany for the use of the five hundred horse power of water power 
provided for by the Act of December 24th, 1887. I do not have 
before me a copy of that contract, but on December 24th, 1892, the 
General Assembly ratified such contract and the parties forthwitli 
entered upon the carrying out of the terms therein provided for. 

The successors of the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light 
and Power Company, who are now styled the Columbia Railway, 
Gas and Electric Company, claim, as I am advised and informed, to 
be the assignees of said contract. 

The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, at its last 
session, by an Act approved on the 12th of March, 1917, and enti¬ 
tled : 

“An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ 
tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia 
Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An 
Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, 
to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands 
now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the 
same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental 
or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of 
and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in 
said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, 
management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” 
authorized the officers of the State therein mentioned to perform 
certain duties and to carry out certain purposes and objects therein 
set forth. I beg to hand you a copy of this Act and direct your 
attenton to all of its provisions, which may concern the Penitentiary. 

The Commission will have a meeting on the 2d of April, 1917, at 
four o’clock p. m., and desire to have before it all information it can 
with regard to the conditions, physical and financial, of the Columbia 
Canal, and especially with regard to all contracts outstanding. [, 
therefore, will thank you to furnish me with the original contract, 
for inspection, or such copy as may be correct, whether in print or 
otherwise; and, also, what alterations, since its ratification by the 
General Assembly, have been made by statute or otherwise, so that 
we may have before us the terms for which it runs, and the provi 
sions connected entirely therewith, and how the same has been car¬ 
ried out and its present condition. 

I beg, in this respect, to assure you, as Superintendent of the 
Penitentiary, that we wish to take no step in this matter without full 
knowledge of everything connected with it, which will throw light 


29 


upon the question and enable us to carry the same into effect. Also, 
to co-operate with you and the Board of Directors of the Peniten¬ 
tiary with regard to this supply of power, whether furnished from 
water flowing through the canal or from any other source; and, 
how long such contracts run, and even as to, so far as you at pres 
ent feel at liberty to do so, how the interests of the State in its Peni¬ 
tentiary and its canal and the furnishing of power, can be best pro¬ 
tected and maintained. It may be that we, as State officers, would 
prefer to take this matter up only as between ourselves, at such con¬ 
ference as we may desire to fix, and I would be very glad for you to 
suggest some date at which you will be able to furnish us all the 
information within your power. We should also be very glad 
indeed to advise with and inform you of all such matters and con¬ 
cerns therewith which will materially affect the conduct and man¬ 
agement of the Penitentiary so far as it relates to this supply of 
water power and the contracts which have been in force. 

Will thank you for as prompt reply as you can give. 

The following resolution was passed by a majority of the officers 
mentioned in the above Act, on the 22d day of the present month: 

“That the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advis¬ 
able, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by 
the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and 
to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the prem¬ 
ises, and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all 
persons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his 
judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as 
may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, 
and to report the same to this Commission at its next meeting.” 

Should you find that you are unable to communicate with us at 
the time mentioned, please indicate by letter, or take the matter up 
personally with the Commission at such time as will be convenient 
to all sides. 

I am. 

Yours very respectfully, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General. 


March 28, 1917. 

Farmers Loan and Trust Company, New York, N. Y. 

Gentlemen: An Act was passed by the General Assembly of the 



30 


State of South Carolina, at its last session, and approved on the 12th 
day of March, 1917, by the Governor, entitled: 

“An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ 
tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia 
Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An 
Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with 
the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to 
develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts 
supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State 
by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions 
contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the 
operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said Canal.” 

Under a conveyance by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal to the Columbia Water Power Company, it appears that 
$200,000.00 of mortgage coupon bonds were authorized and directed 
to be issued by the said Board of Trustees for the completion of the 
canal; and that by an Act of the General Assembly of the State of 
South Carolina, the City Council of Columbia were authorized to 
guarantee the payment of the coupons thereon. 

By an Act of 1890, which was further set out in the conveyance 
of said canal, there appears to have been an agreement made by the 
purchasers to guarantee to the city of Columbia the payment of the 
interest on the bonds so issued, and that certain bonds, to secure the 
payment of said interest, were deposited with you under certain coti- . 
ditions set forth in said agreement. I have no doubt that you have 
a duplicate of this agreement, or of the trust, upon which you hold 
the bonds so deposited. 

You will notice by the terms of the Act, a copy of which I attach 
hereto, that the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary 
Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and the 
Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman 
of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives 
have been given certain power, authority and direction, with regard 
to the property known as the Columbia Canal. At a meeting held 
on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attorney General, it was 
resolved by the officers above mentioned, “that the Attorney General 
be requested, if he deems advisable, to communicate with all persons 
necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved 
March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be 
necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems suffi- 


31 


cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary 
steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the 
Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its pro¬ 
visions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meet- 

• yy 

mg. 

It is their desire to get in possession of all the facts of the case, 
and the present financial condition of the canal; therefore, I will 
thank you if you will advise me what bonds you received, and what 
bonds you now hold; and, if any of these bonds have ever been sur¬ 
rendered, to whom and in what amounts. 

I may refer you, in passing, to Section 6 of the Act which is 
enclosed, a portion of which is as follows: 

“And, further, that they (the officers mentioned in said Act) 
may enter into such arrangements with the mortgage bondhold¬ 
ers of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest of the State 
and the interest of said bondholders; and may enter into such 
agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they may 
deem advisable with regard thereto, which shall not be in con¬ 
flict with any contractual obligations of the State made by the 
Acts heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds 
and the mortgaging of said property.” 

I am. 

Yours very truly, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General. 

April 4, 1917. 

Thomas H. Peeples, Esq., Attorney General, State of South Caro¬ 
lina, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 
28th ultimo, with reference to securities held by this company as 
Trustee for Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, formerly 
the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, 
Assignee of the Columbia Water Power Company. 

We enclose a list of the securities held at the present time duly 
attested and also a statement of the securities originally received 
with changes that have taken place during the period of our custody. 
Trusting this will give you the information you desire, we are. 
Very truly yours, 

THE FARMERS LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, 

By A. V. Heely, 

Vice President. 



32 


April 4th, 1917. 

Statement of securities held by The Farmers Loan and Trust 

Company as Trustee of the Columbia Water Power Co., Columbia, 
S. C.: 

Jan. 19, 1892. Received from them, 82 bonds West Shore 

R. R. Co. 1st Mtge. 4%, due Jan. 1, 

2361 .$82,000 

Jan. 8, 1906. Letter dated Jan. 6, 1906, from Columbia 

Water Power Co., stating that the above 
$82,000 bonds had passed by sale with 
plant and other assets of the company 
to the Columbia Electric Street Rail¬ 
way, Light 8z Power Co. on July 1, 1905. 

Mar. 18, 1906. Received assignment of Columbia Water 

Power Co. to Columbia Electric Street 
Railway, Light & Power Co., dated July 
1, 1905, of above bonds. 

Jan. 28, 1909. Delivered to the Columbia Electric Street 

Railway, Light & Power Co. the above 
bonds in exchange for 35 bonds, Colum¬ 
bia Electric Street Railway, Light & 

Power Co., $35,000 30 Year Gold 5%, 
due July 1, 1935. 

July 25, 1911. Received in exchange for above bonds, 40 

bonds Columbia Railway, Gas & Elec¬ 
tric Co., $40,000, 1st Mortgage 5%, due 
July 1, 1936. 

Name changed from Columbia Electric 
Street Railway, Light & Power Co. on 
July 22, 1911, to Columbia Railway, Gas 
& Electric Co. 


New York, April 4th, 1917. 

Statement of securities held by The Farmers Loan and Trust Com¬ 
pany as Trustee for Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. under 
deed of trust dated January 7, 1892: 

Description, 40 bonds Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co., par 
value $40,000; rate 5% ; interest payable, 1st January and July; 1st 
Mtge. S. F. due July 1, 1936. Total, $40,000. 

THE FARMERS LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, 

By A. V. Heely, 

Vice President. 




33 


March 28th, 1917. 

Honorable Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor of the City of Columbia; Hon¬ 
orable R. C. Keenan, Honorable C. M. Asbill, Honorable E. M. 
DuPre, Honorable F. S. Earle, Members of the City Council 
of Columbia, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Gentlemen: I beg herewith to hand you a copy of the Act passed 
at the last session of the General Assembly of the State of South 
Carolina, approved by the Governor on the 12th day of March, 1917, 
and to ask your examination and consideration thereof. 

A meeting of the officers named in said Act was called and held, 
in the city of Columbia on March 22d, 1917, and a resolution was 
passed requesting the Attorney General to communicate with all per¬ 
sons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, 
approved March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as 
may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems 
sufficient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such prelimi¬ 
nary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of 
the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its 
provisions, and to report the same to the Commission at its next 
meeting. 

The next meeting of the Commission was fixed to be held at 
Columbia, at the office of the Attorney General, on the 2d day of 
April, 1917, at four o’clock p. m. 

If the time which has been fixed for the next meeting of the Com¬ 
mission be not sufficient, I will thank you to indicate what time, 
within a reasonable limit, you would desire to meet with it. 

The Commission wishes to lose no time in carrying into effect the 
provisions of this Act and performing all the duties thereunder. 

I beg to call your attention to the Act of the General Assembly 
of the State of South Carolina, approved the 24th day of December, 
1887, 19 Stat., S. C., page 1090, and to the Act approved the same 
day, 19 Stat., S. C., page 1097. 

The first Act authorized the transfer of the Columbia Canal to a 
Board of Trustees, created by said Act, and required them to per¬ 
form such duties as are in said Act prescribed; and that, after said 
Board had performed its duties, they should, under Section 18, 
transfer the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances to the city of 
Columbia thus making the city of Columbia the beneficiary under 
said Act, subject, however, to the burdens imposed therein. 


34 - 


The second Act authorized the city of Columbia to guarantee and 
pay the coupons on bonds to be issued by the Board of Trustees of 
the Columbia Canal under the Act first mentioned. 

Subsequently, the first Act, of 1887, was amended with regard to 
Section 3, which prescribed the widening and deepening of the old 
canal, etc. And Section 23 also, of said Act, was amended so as to 
authorize the Board of Trustees, after they had developed the canal 
and secured the payment of the debts contracted by them in its 
development, to turn over the canal, with all its appurtenances, to 
the city of Columbia. But, that the said Board of Trustees should 
have full power and authority, before the said canal had been fully 
developed and completed and turned over to the city of Columbia, 
to sell, alienate and transfer the same and all its appurtenances, the 
lands held therewith, and all the rights and franchises conferred by 
the Act on said Board of Trustees, to any person or corporation, sub¬ 
ject, however, to all the duties and liabilities imposed thereby, and 
subject to all contracts, liabilities and obligations made and entered 
into by said Board prior to such sale and transfer, upon the appro¬ 
val and consent of nine members of the City Council of the city of 
Columbia, etc. This Act was approved on December 24th, 1890. 
(20 Stat., S. C., page 967.) 

I am advised that the proposition for the purchase of the canal 
was made by George Wallace to the Board of Trustees of the Colum¬ 
bia Canal and to the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Columbia, 
of date about July 14th, 1891, and that said proposition was accepted 
by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal and was approved 
by the City Council on or about July 15th, 1891; and, that it was 
subsequently assigned by George Wallace to Aretas Blood, and was 
duly assigned by said Aretas Blood to the Columbia Water Power 
Company, a corporation duly incorporated by and under the laws of 
the State of South Carolina. 

Under the proposition made to the Board of Trustees of the 
Columbia Canal and to the City Council of Columbia, a conveyance 
was made which reserved to the city of Columbia a certain strip of 
land on the east and west sides of said canal, from the north side of 
Laurel street to the south side of Blanding street, and an additional 
one hundred horse power of water power. 

The said George Wallace, and his assigns, for the purpose of 
guaranteeing the payment of the interest on said bonds, agreed that 
they would deposit certain bonds in the city of New York and in 
Columbia, in accordance with the conditions therein set forth, and 


35 


such bonds, belonging to the Columbia Water Power Company, were 
deposited, under contract, with a trust company of New York and 
the Loan and Exchange Bank of this State, subject to the conditions 
and terms fully set forth, the original of which we suppose the city 
of Columbia now has in its possession. 

This notice is given, therefore, to you as being a party concerned, 
within the terms of this Act, as well as the bondholders alluded to in 
Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the Commission will be very glad for 
you to take this matter under consideration, for the protection of the 
rights of the city thereunder, and of the State’s interest, as they beg 
to assure you that it is their intention to protect the city’s interest and 
to preserve these contracts to the full extent authorized ])y said Act. 
I would thank you, therefore, to communicate wtih the Commission 
upon the subject on the date mentioned, or at such date, within a 
reasonable time, as you may designate. 

How far the State of South Carolina may be subrogated to this 
agreement of guaranty, or how far the city of Columbia may be 
obligated, ought to be considered. The Commission will be very glad 
to co-operate in any way it can to clarify the situation, and this can 
only be done by it having the adequate knowledge—which you can 
furnish by the production of the papers and of such contracts as the 
city may have with the present company as to the supplying of 
water under the Acts and contracts by the corporation claiming 
under Columbia Water Power Company; and, how many bonds on 
the canal are outstanding, and how many have been taken down 
from the West Shore bonds which were deposited to guarantee the 
payment of this interest. 

I am. 


Yours very truly, 


THOS. H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General. 


March 28th, 1917. 

Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia, S. C., or Its Successor or 
Successors, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Gentlemen: An Act was passed by the General Assembly of the 
State of South Carolina, at its last session, and approved on the 12th 
day of March, 1917, by the Governor, entitled: 

“An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ 
tenances, and the interest'of the State in and to the Columbia 
Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An 



36 


Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with 
the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to 
develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts 
supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by 
reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions con¬ 
tained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the 
operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said Canal.” 

Under a conveyance of the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal to the Columbia Water Power Company, it appears that $200,- 
000.00 of mortgage coupon bonds were authorized and directed to 
be issued by the said Board of Trustees for the completion of the 
canal; and that by an Act of the General Assembly of the State of 
South Carolina, the City Council of Columbia were authorized to 
guarantee the payment of the coupons thereon. 

By an Act of 1890, which was further set out in the conveyance 
of said canal, there appears to have been an agreement made by the 
])urchasers to guarantee to the city of Columbia the payment of the 
interest on the bonds so issued, and that certain bonds, to secure the 
payment of said interest, were deposited with you under certain 
conditions set forth in said agreement. I have no doubt that you 
have a duplicate of this agreement, or of the trust, upon which you 
hold the bonds so deposited. 

You will notice by the terms of the Act, a copy of which I attach 
hereto, that the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary 
Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and the 
Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chair¬ 
man of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Represen¬ 
tatives have been given certain power, authority and direction, with 
regard to the property known as the Columbia Canal. At a meeting 
held on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attorney General, it was 
resolved by the officers above mentioned, “that the Attorney General 
be requested, if he deems advisable, to communicate with all persons 
necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved 
March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be 
necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems suffi¬ 
cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary 
steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the 
Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its pro¬ 
visions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meet¬ 
ing. 


37 


It is their desire to get in possession of all the facts of the case, 
and the present financial condition of the canal; therefore, I will 
thank you if you will advise me what bonds you received, and what 
bonds you now hold; and, if any of these bonds have ever been sur¬ 
rendered, to whom and in what amounts. 


I may refer you, in passing, to Section 6 of the Act which is 
enclosed, a portion of which is as follows: 

“And, further, that they (the officers mentioned in said Act) 
may enter into such arrangements with the mortgage bondhold¬ 
ers of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest of the State 
and the interest of said bondholders; and may enter into such 
agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they may 
deem advisable with regard thereto, which shall not be in con¬ 
flict with any contractual obligations of the State made by the 
Acts heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds 
and the mortgaging of said property.” 

I am. 

Yours very truly, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 


Attorney General. 


April 3, 1917. 

Hon. Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War of the United States. 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to advise you that the General Assem¬ 
bly of the State of South Carolina, at its last session, passed an Act, 
which was approved by the Governor on March 12, 1917, and went 
into efifect upon said date, entitled “An Act to declare that the 
Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and the interest of the State 
in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an 
Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the 
Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, 
with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to 
develop the same,’ approved December 24, 1887, and Acts supple¬ 
mental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason 
of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said 
Act, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, manage¬ 
ment, control, disposal or sale of said canal.” 

Section 1 of this Act is as follows: “Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the 
General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, That the condi¬ 
tions of the Act of the General Assembly hereinabove mentioned. 



38 


and the Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, have not been 
complied with, but that the same have been disregarded, and by rea¬ 
son thereof the right, title and interest of the State to the said 
Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, so 
transferred by virtue of said Acts, have been forfeited and reverted 
to the State.” 

Section 2 gives certain powers to and enjoins certain duties upon 
the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees 
of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Chairman of the 
Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee of the House of Representaives with regard 
to the disposal of the Columbia Canal. 

A meeting of the officers named in said Act was called and held in 
the city of Columbia on March 22, 1917, and a resolution was 
passed “requesting the Attorney General to communicate with all 
])ersons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, 
approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may 
be necessary in the premises and give notice, such as he deems suffi¬ 
cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such prelimi¬ 
nary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of 
the Act, and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its 
provisions, and to report the same to the Commission at its next 
meeting.” 

I am advised that there have been made to your Department, 
severally or jointly, certain propositions with reference to making 
some arrangements to obtain the location of a nitrogen fixation plant 
at Columbia, under the terms of the Federal Act, known as the 
“Smith Nitrate Bill.” 

By Section 7 of said Act, as the officers mentioned therein con¬ 
strue it, there was no limitation placed upon the time when they are 
authorized and have authority to make such proposition or conclude 
any agreement that may meet with satisfaction. I attach hereto 
copy of said Act and direct your attention to Section 7 thereof. 

The property having reverted to the State under this Act, and as 
this property for nearly five miles not only includes the canal itself, 
but also the lands on the Broad River, which have been overflowed 
by the construction of the dam, or would be overflowed by a higher 
dam, as also the lands on the east and west sides of the canal itself; 
and, as the State of South Carolina does not desire to make any 
money out of the property, except to obtain the free navigation of 
the Congaree and Broad Rivers and the development of the power 


39 


for the use of the city of Columbia and surrounding industries, 
which would prevent any monopoly by the purchasing of the whole 
of the water power by several companies in the State, thus insuring 
to the citizens of the State for whom it would be available competi¬ 
tive rates for power, we would be inclined to think that a very small 
outlay for lands necessary for the development by the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment, would be deemed advisable. 

Yours very truly, 


THOS, H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General. 


Similar letters were sent to Secretary of Interior and Secretary of 
Agriculture. 

Washington, April 14, 1917. 

Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 
Columbia, S. C. 

Sir: I have the honor to state that your letters of the 3d instant, 
to members of the Board on location of federal nitrate plants, have 
been referred to this office, which is giving study to the matter, and 
that they have been filed for reference should the need arise. 

By direction of the Chief of Engineers: 

Very respectfully, 

C. KELLER, 

Lt. Col., Corps of Engineers. 


The Secretary of Agriculture. 

Washington, April 7, 1917. 

Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: I have your letter of April 3 in reference to an Act 
passed by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina in 
reference to the Columbia Canal and its appurtenances. This mat¬ 
ter, so far as I can gather, relates mainly to the possible use of the 
canal in connection with a nitrate site. This whole question is 
receiving the careful consideration of the Nitrate Board. I shall be 
glad to bring it to its attention. Very truly yours, 

D. S. HOUSTON, 
Secretary. 




40 


The Secretary of the Interior. 

Washington, April 7, 1917. 

Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 
Columbia, S. C. 

My Dear Mr. Attorney General: Secretary Lane has received your 
letter of April 3d, with respect to the location of the nitrate plant, 
and in reply wishes me to say that he is bringing it to the attention 
of Secretary Baker, of the War Department, for his consideration. 

Cordially yours, 

GLENN M. SHAEFFER, 
Acting Private Secretary. 


Columbia, S. C., April 2, 1917. 

Pursuant to call of Attorney General Peeples, the Commission met 
at twelve o’clock, noon, on April 2, 1917. 

Members of the Commission present were: Attorney General 
Peeples, Senator Huger Sinkler, Hon. J. W. Boyd, and Hon. J. T. 
Liles. 

Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. 

A permanent organization was affected by the election of Attorne> 
General Peeples as Chairman, and Mr. J. T. Liles as Secretary. 

The Attorney General reported that in accordance with motion 
adopted at previous meeting, he had addressed communications to 
the following named parties, who are interested in the Columbia 
Canal property: 

Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Columbia, S. C., 
dated March 28, 1917; Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the 
South Carolina Penitentiary, Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; 
Hon. Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor, and members of City Council, 
Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; Loan and Exchange Bank of 
Columbia, S. C., or its successor or successors, Columbia, S. C., dated 
March 28, 1917; Farmers Loan and Trust Company, New York, 
N. Y., dated March 28, 1917. Copies of these letters, together with 
such replies as were received, were made a part of the Attorney Gen¬ 
eral’s report, and are attached to these minutes. 

The question of the employment of counsel to assist the Attorney 
General in any litigation that might arise, was discussed, and it was 
decided to consult with Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon 
relative to securing their services. 

Upon invitation of the Commission, these gentlemen appeared 
before the Commission and they agreed to assist the Attorney Gen- 



41 


eral in representing the State’s interests in the event the Commission 
decided that additional counsel was needed. During said consul¬ 
tation the Act creating Canal Commission, approved March 12, 1917, 
was read and the attention of these gentlemen was called to the 
amount fixed in the Appropriation Bill of 1917, as specified by Item 
7 of Section 9, for the purpose of litigation in connection with the 
Columbia Canal. These gentlemen stated that they would be will¬ 
ing to act as assistant counsel to the Attorney General, representing 
the Committee, and if the litigation devolved more work than could 
be at present foreseen, they would leave to the discretion of the 
Commission the question whether they would recommend to the 
Legislature more compensation than was fixed by the Appropriation 
Bill. 

At the conclusion of this conference, upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, 
it was decided to approve the employment of Mr. B. L. Abney and 
J. F. Lyon to assist the Attorney General in representing the Com¬ 
mission. The question of compensation in reference to the amounts 
and time of payment to be considered at the next session of the 
Commission. 

Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the Penitentiary, appeared 
before the Commission in reply to letter addressed to him by the 
Attorney General and stated that the Columbia Railway, Gas and 
Electric Company was paying to the Penitentiary $187.73 per month, 
but that he could not find the contract providing for such, payment. 
The Commission requested Mr. Sanders to continue his search for 
the contract, and to secure such other information as in his judg¬ 
ment, would prove of assistance to the Commission. 

At six o’clock p. m., upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission 
adjourned to meet Tuesday, April 17th, at ten o’clock a. m., unless 
otherwise called by the Chairman. 


Columbia, S. C., April 17, 1917. 

Pursuant to adjournment of the Commssion on April 2, 1917, 
the Commission met in the Attorney General’s office at ten o’clock 

a. m. 

Present: Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Hon. Huger Sinkler and Hon. 
Jesse W. Boyd. 

In the absence of the Secretary, the Chairman appointed Mr. Boyd 
to act as temporary Secretary. 



42 


Minutes of previous meeting were read. Mr. Sinkler moved to- 
amend the minutes (in justice to Mr. Abney) by inserting at the 
foot of the minutes, the following: “When reference was made to* 
the Section of the Act and the Appropriation Bill with reference to 
compensation of attorneys, Mr. Abney stated that the matter of his 
compensation was secondary, his interest in the suit being primary.’^ 

During consideration of this motion, Hon. Neils Christensen and 
Hon. J. T. Liles, Secretary, came in. Motion adopted. 

Mr. Boyd moved that the minutes be further amended by strik¬ 
ing out the words “pursuant to call of Attorney General Peeples,” 
in the first paragraph, and inserting in lieu thereof “pursuant to 
adjournment at previous meeting.” Motion adopted. There being 
no further amendments, the minutes were approved as amended. 

Letters were submitted by the Chairman that had been received 
from the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior of 
the United States and were ordered made a part of the record. 
Copies of letters written by the Attorney General to parties inter¬ 
ested in the canal property and all replies that had been received, 
were made part of the record. 

At eleven o’clock a. m., upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission 
receded from business until 11 :15. 

Mr. Liles, representing the Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric 
Company, at the invitation of the Commission, appeared and made 
a statement which is filed with the records of this Commission. 

Upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, further consideration of the matter- 
of compensation for additional counsel was postponed until the next 
meeting of the Commission. 

Upon motion of Mr. Boyd, Attorney General Peeples and Senator- 
Sinkler were named as a committee to look into the advisability of 
securing the services of a competent engineer in order that the prob¬ 
able cost of the completion of the canal might be determined and 
report at the next meeting. 

Upon motion of Mr. Christensen, it was ordered that the Com¬ 
mission address a letter to Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon 
requesting that they submit in writing to the Commission the terms 
upon which they will serve the Commission as assistant counsel to» 
the Attorney General in connection with the Columbia Canal liti-- 
gation. 


43 


At six o’clock p. m. the Commission adjourned to meet at ten 
o’clock a. m. on Thursday, April 26, unless otherwise called by the 
Chairman. 

Approved May 23, 1917. N. CHRISTENSEN, 

Acting Secretary. 


STATEMENT BY MR. J. B. S. LYLES. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commission: I represent in 
this matter, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, and am 
very sorry that on account of unexpected circumstances, we are not¬ 
in a position to talk to the Commission this morning. Mr. Robert¬ 
son, the President of this company, addressed a letter to the Attorney 
General, stating that in so far as this company was concerned, he 
could not act until he had been authorized to do so by a meeting of 
this company, held on the 12th inst. We had expected at that time 
that Mr. Robertson would get back from New York, and Mr. Elliott 
and I expected to see him on yesterday and appear before this Com¬ 
mission this morning in a definite manner, but Mr. Robertson 
became engaged with General Wood in connection with this canton¬ 
ment, in which he is very much interested as a citizen of Columbia, 
and in which he has done a great deal of work, and will not be back 
until tomorrow, so we are without authority to act. We didn’t 
know until Saturday night that he had changed his plans about 
returning and immediately Mr. Elliott got in touch with the Attorney 
General. Now, we don’t want the Commission to think we are in 
any way trying to delay this matter, because, as you gentlemen know, 
it is a very complicated situation and our efiforts have been to get 
down to some definite basis upon which to take the matter up with 
this Commission. As I stated before, the meeting of the Directors 
has been held in New York, but until we have a conference with 
Mr. Robertson we are unable to act. 

Mr. J. T. Liles: Do you think you will be in a position to make a 
proposition tomorrow ? 

Mr. J. B. S. Lyles: I could not say positively when Mr. Robertson 
will get back. This morning at ten o’clock he had not wired whether 
or not he would be here. He is interested in getting the camp in 
Columbia and he and General Wood are in New York. 

Mr. Sinkler: Would your client be in position to submit a written 
statement of your proposition to this Commission? 



44 


Mr Lyles: We will be just as soon as we have a conference with 
our clients. That is what we intended to do. 

Mr. J. T. Liles: At what time do you think your company would 
be in position to submit such a statement? 

Mr. Lyles: Within a day or so after Mr. Robertson gets back— 
certainly by next week. 

Mr. Sinkler: And after such proposition had been made, oral 
statements would be unnecessary ? 

Mr. Lyles: I should think so. I take it that this Commission has 
not made any proposition to this company, but has invited a propo¬ 
sition from the company, and just as soon as we can find out what 
the company wishes, we will submit the written proposition. 

Mr. Peeples: If Mr. Robertson returns today or tomorrow and 
the Commission is in session, could you make a proposition to the 
Commission tomorrow? 

Mr. Lyles: If he gets in today, which I think is very doubtful, 
we could make the proposition tomorrow, but we would like to have 
a couple of hours to confer and frame this proposition. While it 
might be done, I don’t see how we could by tomorrow. I wanted 
the Commission to understand that this situation was one we could 
not help and we are not trying to delay matters. 

Mr. W. C. Miller and Mr. Howard Baetjer appeared before the 
Commission and made statements, as follows: 

Mr. Miller: I am here representing Mr. Howard Baetjer, who is 
President of the Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills. The Mount Ver¬ 
non Mills is the owner of a site on the canal, and I think some eigh¬ 
teen hundred horse power. The site and horse power were acquired 
from the Columbia Mills by deeds in 1894, and I think one or two 
subsequent. The Columbia Mills was erected near the canal, as I 
understand it, not on the canal property, but the powerhouse is. 
Our view of the situation is that the site was acquired and water 
power purchased by the Columbia Mills from the Columbia Water 
Power Company under the power of sale contained in the Act of 
1887, and our view is that if there has been a forfeiture of any of the 
Columbia Mills property, that forfeiture has not extended to the sale 
like this of a site and water power which was made under the terms 
conferred by the original deed and in this case it was a case of a mill 
induced by the invitation held up by the Act of 1887 to erect mills, 
and this mill with thirty thousand spindles purchased this site and 
water power in reliance upon that Act. So that, we have come 
before you gentlemen this morning with no proposition except to 


45 


say that your Commission will recognize the title to the site and to 
the water power and will recommend that it be confirmed in us as 
third parties, purchasers in good faith, and for valuable considera¬ 
tion under the terms of the Act. 

The water power, I think, is paying an annual rental of $7.00 per 
horse power,—eighteen hundred horse power. Of course, if that 
power should revert to the State, the revenue from the horse power 
would be in the State, and we are here only to ask that the Commis¬ 
sion will see the justice of recognizing the title which we have 
acquired and recommending that it be confirmed. We have put it 
in the shape of a short letter and will ask the Commission to file it. 

Following is the letter received : 

“Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. 

Messrs. Thomas H. Peeples, N. Christensen, Jesse W. Boyd, J. T. 
Lyles and Huger Sinkler, Commissioners Appointed Under the 
Act to Declare That the Columbia Canal, Etc., Shall Revert to 
the State. 

Gentlemen: The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., is the 
owner of a site upon the Columbia Canal and of water power derived 
therefrom. This site and this water power were acquired from the 
Columbia Mills, to whom they were sold and conveyed by the Colum¬ 
bia Water Power Company by deeds dated in 1884. The sales were 
made under the ample power of sale contained in the Act of Decem¬ 
ber 24, 1887; and the Columbia Mills was located near the canal with 
a capacity of thirty thousand spindles in reliance upon the power of 
sales therein contained. The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., 
therefore, submits that if there has been any forfeiture of the 
Columbia Canal properties, such forfeiture does not extend to the 
land and the water power so hona fide sold and purchased in reliance 
upon said Act. It, therefore, asks that the Commission will recog¬ 
nize and confirm its title to the said site and water power, subject to 
the approval of the Legislature of South Carolina. 

Respectfully, 

HOWARD BAETJER, 

President.” 


Mr. Sinkler: Where is the power now obtained from, Mr. Baet- 
'er ? 

Mr. Baetjer: That horse power is water power and we have to 
develop it ourselves. Our powerhouse is on the banks of the canal, 



46 


and we generate that power and pay rent for so many horse power of 
water in the canal. We generate the power and carry it to the mill. 
[ think the deed calls for the land and so many cubic feet of water in 
the canal. 

Mr. Liles: To whom do you pay this rent? 

Mr. Baetjer: To the successors of the Columbia Water Power 
Company. It was bought with so many horse power of water. The 
land was paid for outright and the horse power rented. The deeds 
are dated in 1894,— for the horse power has been from time to time, 
but the deed for the land is 1894. 

Mr. Sinkler: Have you a contract for supplying the horse power 
from any other source? 

Mr. Baetjer: That was not enough water, so we bought the rest 
from the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company; that supply, 
I think, is from Parr Shoals; neither source is sufficient. 

C. S. MONTEITH, CITY ATTORNEY. 

Gentlemen, we can find no special contract other than the Act of 
the Legislature; the City Clerk informs me that we have no other 
contract. We are getting the supply of water called for—five hun¬ 
dred horse power. Sometimes we don’t use it all and sometimes 
we do. 

By Mr. Liles: Have they complied with the Act of the Legisla¬ 
ture? Yes, sir, in so far as we are concerned. 

Mr. Boyd: Was that just gratis to the city because the city of 
Columbia happened to be the capital, or was there some considera¬ 
tion? There was some consideration, I think. I am inclined to 
think the city of Columbia spent a great deal of money in helping to 
open the canal to where it is. I could not say positively, however, 
for it is so far back. 

By Mr. Boyd: But can’t you find something tangible? I will try, 
Mr. Boyd. 

By Mr. Boyd: Of course, if the city of Columbia is simply receiv¬ 
ing 500 horse power from the Street Railway Company because the 
Act of the Legislature said so, or because Columbia was the capital 
of the State, that would be a very different proposition from a 
proposition founded on some consideration on the part of the city, 
and can’t you find something tangible? I will try to see if I can’t 
get you that information. I was told the city had spent some money, 
but it is hard to find the records. 


47 


By Mr. Boyd: How many bonds are outstanding is the next 
question ? All are outstanding. 

By Mr. Christensen: What records has the City Treasurer in ref¬ 
erence to these bonds ? No records. 

By Mr. Christensen: Your statement that these bonds are out¬ 
standing is based on what? The city guaranteed the interest on 
these bonds and that amounts to $12,000.00 per year and the Street 
Railway Company has been paying to our City Treasurer v$6,000.00 
every six months, which shows that the bonds are outstanding. 

By Mr. Boyd: Do you know what was the motive, Mr. Monteith, 
for assigning that duty to the City Treasurer? I couldn’t tell you 
except he was to act as Clerk to this Commission created by the 
Legislature and the city guaranteed the bonds, the interest on the 
bonds. 

By Mr. Liles: What obligation was there on the part of the city' 
to guarantee these bonds ? The Legislature said they must do so. 

By Mr. Sinkler : Couldn’t you ascertain that—are there any mem^ 
bers of that Commission living now? I have a copy of the mortgage 
given to secure these bonds; Captain W. B. Lowrance is still alive; 
Colonel McMaster is dead. General Wilie Jones was one of the 
Trustees, and he might give me some information. Mr. Wright 
and Mr. Marshall are dead. 

By Mr. Boyd: Have you a copy you can give us? I will leave 
this copy with you. I have no other copy, but it is recorded in 
Richland county. As I said before, all the bonds are outstanding. 
$100,000 is due next January and the other $100,000 due the first 
of January, 1919. The interest on these bonds has been regularly 
paid by the Street Railway Company; they have paid the amount 
to the City Treasurer and he has paid the interest on the bonds. 
He paid $6,000 on last January and I presume will pay $6,000 in 
July. 

By Mr. Peeples: Do you know anything in connection with the 
property adjoining the canal that once belonged to the city and if 
it now belongs to them? I do not. I will ask the Superintendent 
of the Water Works to get that information for you. He says we 
own all the property; a strip of land was swapped with the power 
company in some way. When the Street Railway Company took 
on this matter they guaranteed payment of interest and deposited 
West Shoal Railway bonds. As to how many of these bonds have 
been taken down, I will state a former City Council let all of these 
bonds be taken down upon others being put up in their place. They 


48 


were to protect the interest and the interest has been taken care of. 
I want to file with this Commission an extract of the minutes of the 
meeting as to the right of the city to take down the West Shoal bonds 
and substitute others. 

By Mr. Peeples: Where are these bonds? I understand in the 
Loan & Exchange Bank and some Trust Company in New York. 

By Mr. Peeples : What is the amount? $82,000.00 and $18,000.00 
which makes $100,000.00. 

By Mr. Peeples: Can you tell us how many are filed with each? 
$82,000.00 with the Farmers Trust Company, and $18,000.00 with 
the Loan & Exchange Bank, I think. 

By Mr. Peeples: What became of the difiference? They paid up 
the interest and reduced their liability so far as the interest was 
concerned, by paying $12,000.00 in cash each year. The contract 
provided that they put up these bonds to secure the interest, not the 
bonds. The property was mortgaged for the payment of these 
bonds and they have taken care of the interest right along every 
year. 

By Mr. Peeples: Why were the $100,000.00 bonds put up and 
there are now only $60,000.00 worth of bonds—what became of the 
difiference? That $100,000.00 was put up in 1905, then they have 
paid four years’ interest, or $48,000.00, reducing their liability by 
that much. 

By Mr. Boyd: The payment of interest is in lieu of the bonds? 
When they pay up that interest, they are entitled to take all those 
bonds down. 

By Mr. Boyd: This paper refers to the substitution and to a con¬ 
tract—have you a copy of that contract? That is a Legislative Act. 

By Mr. Boyd: If the city of Columbia has any vested rights with 
reference to this matter, that should be protected; if they have none, 
then we might deal with the proposition without any reference to 
the city’s interest; it appears that there is some consideration and 
can you find something for us? Well, so far as we know at this 
time the 500 horse power was vested in the city by Act of the Leg¬ 
islature and I don’t know what the consideration was. 

By Mr. Liles: What right does the city claim? They don’t claim 
anything except to be protected in what they have had all the time. 
We have made no additional claim whatever. 

Mr. Sinkler: Does the city want to claim that? Yes, sir, we cer¬ 
tainly do. We must supply the people in this city with water. 


49 


By Mr. Christensen: Does the city operate its own plant? Yes, 
sir. 

By Mr. Christensen: And this water that is furnished by the 
Street Railway Company is used in the city? Yes, in the city itself. 
For nothing else. We have our own wheels and develop the power. 

By Mr. Peeples: Mr. Monteith, we would like for you to get such 
information and data as is possible and lay it before the Commission 
so we may act intelligently? We will gladly furnish all the informa¬ 
tion we can. 

By Mr. Liles: The city has recommended that this canal be com¬ 
pleted, hasn’t it? Well, we left that to the Chairman of the Cham¬ 
ber of Commerce and they framed a resolution which was approved 
by the City Council. 

STATEMENT BY MR. R. K. CARSON. 

My position is this, gentlemen: I don’t know just what the Com¬ 
mission has in mind, but I just want to make an offer for the canal; 
however, I don’t know whether this is the proper time to make an 
offer. I know something of the history of the canal, and it is 
unnecessary to go into that, and I know that the present claimants 
have, or claim to have, a vested right. Whether or not these rights 
have been divested by their failure to carry out their contract about 
which there seems no question, would perhaps be a matter first for 
this Commission, and possibly a matter for the Courts to decide. 
Now, if it is the purpose of this Commission to give the present 
owners od the franchise the privilege of carrying out their contract 
as it now stands, or to carry out their contract upon certain condi¬ 
tions, this would, of course, give them a preference, and it would be 
unnecessary for another person to bid. On the other hand, if the 
Commission has determined to declare that they have no right to the 
property; that they have forfeited the rights, and it is now the prop¬ 
erty of the State, and to put it up to the highest bidder, then I 
would be prepared to bid on the property. In other words, I don’t 
care to make an offer which might serve no purpose except to compel 
the present claimants to comply with the terms of the contract, and 
if, as I say, the Commission has in mind to allow them to keep it 
upon performance of the present contract, then I have no offer to 
make. On the other hand, if the Commission considers that the 
franchise is not now the property of the present claimants and they 
will accept an offer and give the preference to the highest bidder, 
then we will make the offer. And I might say that when we make the 


50 


offer, it will be accompanied with a sufficient cash deposit to guaran¬ 
tee that it is made in good faith, and we will be willing to enter into 
bond for $100,000 or $150,000, or such amount as the Commission 
might think advisable, for the carrying out of the contract and com¬ 
pleting the canal within eighteen months, work to begin within thirty 
or sixty days. If it is not now the porper time to make the offer, I 
would like to put the Commission on notice that there are other 
people who would like to have the property, and I will say that 
myself and associates are prepared to put up the sufficient cash 
bond, as I stated before. Of course, it would be understood that 
i f we got the property and gave a bond to complete it within eighteen 
months, we would want it specified that in event work was post¬ 
poned or delayed by reason of an injunction or any other legal pro¬ 
ceedings, that that time would be deducted during the pendency of 
the proceedings. Of course, if you require it, then it would be 
open to the public for navigation, and it would have to be, for it is 
one of the streams of South Carolina. 

By Mr. Liles: Would you mind stating who you represent in this 
matter? I don’t consider that necessary now, Mr. Liles. If there 
was any question as to whether or not this contract would be carried 
out by the people I represent, that would be a very pertinent inquiry. 
In view of the fact that we will put up the cash bond to guarantee 
the contract I don’t think it is necessary to state who I represent at 
this time. 

By Mr. Christensen: Would you expect to do it if you make a 
proposition? Yes; I would associate somebody else, but I might 
associate others than those named in the application also. I think 
the thing for the Commission to pass upon, if you will pardon me, 
would be, first, the sufficiency of the offer; and, second, the suffi¬ 
ciency of the bond; because if the canal is completed, it is utterly 
immaterial by whom it is completed. What the State and Columbia 
V ants is the canal completed in order that Columbia may be on a 
navigable stream. I mean, of course, to comply with the Act of 
1887—I think that is the Act. 

By Mr. Peeples: The Commission will receive Mr. Carson’s 
statement, and advise him in due time its determination. 

By Mr. Liles: Mr. Carson, you are prepared at any time? Yes, 
sir; at any time that will suit the convenience of this Commission. 
I can make the proposition at any time. I want to make the propo¬ 
sition with a view of acquiring the franchise and not as a lever to 
prize some one else. 


51 


STATEMENT BY MR. T. C. WILLIAMS. 

I am interested in the opening of this canal solely from a point 
of navigation. I started a boat line on this river some five or six 
years ago. I took up the matter with the shippers first in Colum¬ 
bia, then with Mr. Robertson, but he put the matter off. I then went 
to Charleston and took the matter up with Eicken, Hughes & 
Ficken and they examined the title to the property. Mr. Hughes 
succeeded in getting about seventy or eighty thousand dollars sub¬ 
scribed, but we needed one hundred and fifty thousand. Mr. Rhett 
and a number of prominent men and bankers subscribed and I went 
to Mr. Jahns, of the Germania Bank, and explained to him my 
proposition. He told me to come back and when I did he said “I 
am not only going to have to refuse to subscribe to your proposi¬ 
tion, but I am going to fight your project.” He gave as his reasons 
that he had sold about eight thousand kegs of nails in Greenville 
county and that those nails were sold because he had the advantage 
over the Greenville and Columbia jobbers of thirteen cents on the 
keg. It was eleven cents to be accurate, but he said thirteen. He 
said he had a stick thirteen feet long to beat the Columbia jobbers 
with and that he was not going to give up. He also said if we put 
the boat line on, the other sections of the State would be on a line 
with Charleston. 

Mr. Robertson then told me if I would turn my papers over to 
him he would float my bonds. I told him I couldn’t for I then had 
a contract with Mr. Hughes. He told me to write Mr. Hughes that 
I could make better arrangements unless he would act within a short 
time. A few days afterward Mr. Hughes wrote me that in view 
of his campaign he thought probably I had better go ahead. Mr. 
Robertson told me then I would have to make it three hundred 
thousand dollars; he told me to meet him at the Albermarle Hotel 
and I went there and Mr. Graham went with me. He had arranged 
an appointment for me with Redmond & Company. At this meet¬ 
ing there were representatives of J. G. White & Company and other 
trust companies of New York. I outlined the project and Mr. 
Brown said that this proposition would not only be of enormous 
benefit to South Carolina, but warranted their taking these bonds 
and that he would send an engineer down right away. The engi¬ 
neer didn’t come and two or three weeks later I went to Mr. 
Robertson’s office and he told me I was entirely too impatient. 
I went several times. In the meantime the Legislature met and the 
Richland County Delegation had a meeting at the Palmetto National 


52 


Bank. Palmer McMaster, who had fought this thing all the way 
through the Legislature, got up and said “gentlemen, I am going 
to surprise you—I have a proposition to make,” and he quoted the 
proposition I had turned over to Mr. Robertson word for word. 
He then said if Richlad county would relieve Mr. Robertson of his 
proposition to finish this canal, he would connect the landing by 
electric cars. 

I then went to Mr. Robertson and demanded a return of my 
papers, but he said they were either with Redmond & Company 
or John Skelton Williams. I wired Williams and have his answer 
now. Pie said, “I have never seen papers regarding Columbia 
Atlantic Steamship Company.” He said though he would be in 
New York the next day and would look through his desk. He 
wired the next day that the papers had never been in his posses¬ 
sion, but he would be glad if I would come to Richmond. My 
brother, C. T. Williams, had discussed the matter with him. After 
that Mr. Robertson sent Mr. McMaster to me to ask me to come to 
the bank. I went and he said he was due me an apology. I told 
him I didn’t want any apology, I wanted my papers for they rep¬ 
resented three years’ work to me, and after a while he sent them 
to me. I have a letter from Mr. Robertson in which he stated that 
this canal would be not only of enormous benefit to Columbia, but 
to the entire Piedmont and central part of the State. The result of 
this was that my project fell through. 

I have a contract to deliver ten thousand bales of cotton to the 
Duck Mills; our rate is 8 cents per hundred pounds—about 40 cent? 
to bring it from Georgetown to Columbia. The drayage from the 
landing to the Duck Mills is 5 cents per hundred pounds, or 25 
cents per bale. Now you see Columbia has no water transportation. 
We can save four cents per bushel on corn to Columbia; 22 cents 
on flour, and that is not only to Columbia, but to other points in 
the State. The project is a big one for South Carolina. You 
haven’t a distributing point in South Carolina. The opening of the 
canal would have a tendency to reduce your freight rates to Charles¬ 
ton. We have a contract with the Clyde Line for a division of 
50-50; that is to say, if the freight from New York to Columbia 
was one dollar, we would haul it for fifty cents. I understand 
the Southern Railway division is about thirty-three and the Clyde 
Line sixty-six. We have a better division by water than by rail. 

This dam across the river was built a number of years ago at 
a cost of something like five hundred thousand dollars. It was 


53 


built by an order of Congress, but the engineers say it would be 
better to put this lock and dam in the scrap heap. 

Mr. Liles: Who is responsible for the construction of this dam? 
I can say this, the United States Government in all navigable waters 
—this is under control of the War Department—^and the law says 
you shall not build without first getting the consent of Congress and 
approval of the engineers, and when recommended by the engi¬ 
neers it is always done. Strange to say no Army Engineer and no 
Board of Engineers ever recommended the construction of this lock 
and dam and the Engineering Department in Washington and 
Columbia disclaim any responsibility. I have been told that Mr, 
Stanyarne Wilson was in Congress at the time and had something 
to do with it. 

Mr. Liles: It was in lieu of opening the canal? This is very 
important, about four years ago the United States Government sent 
a special Board of Engineers to Columbia to look into the impor¬ 
tance of opening this canal and I have here the report of these engi¬ 
neers which I will leave with you. I understand they recommended 
an appropriation in view of Columbia’s need, but this appropriation 
was contingent upon the opening of this canal. 

Mr. Christensen: Was that to go to the improvement of the 
river below? Yes, sir. Major Youngblood says the canal should 
be opened to head of navigation which is about three hundred 
yards below Rocky Branch. The water there is about 16 feet deep 
at low water. If you open at a point above, you have to go through 
the locks and go under the railroad bridges which would necessi¬ 
tate their having drawbridges. The Government spends from thirty 
to fifty thousand dollars per year and it is impossible to keep the 
channel open. 

Mr. Boyd: How about this river channel? We have to give the 
Captains of our boats a release when they go through. 

Mr. Christensen: It is that dangerous? Yes. 

Mr. Liles: Could you make it safe? You can’t make it safe. If 
you will spend enough to cut it from the locks to Gervais street, 
make the railroads put drawbridges, spend money enough to open 
up a waterway and build a concrete wall about 32 feet—that would 
cost though aboitt.five or six times as much as to open the canal. 
Another thing, when the Columbia Canal is opened that will open up 
the Broad River and few people know the value of the Broad 

River. 


54 


Mr. Sinkler: How far up is it navigable now? About nine 
miles. 

Mr. Christensen: How much money would it take to open up 
navigation twenty miles above Columbia? I couldn’t say, but 1 
am satisfied that just as soon as you get this canal open Mr. Lever 
will be able to get a sufficient appropriation to carry you above. 

Mr. Christensen: Is Parr Shoals the limit? No. 

Mr. Boyd: Are there any locks in Parr Shoals dam? No. 
However,'let me illustrate. Take the Cape Fear River which has 
a depth of two feet, six inches. It has no country around like 
this; is 110 miles to Wilmington. On the 5th of last November the 
United States Government made sufficient appropriation to con¬ 
struct locks and dams, which cost a considerable sum, to get them 
eight feet of water at the foot of Play street. General Black, who 
was here with the Nitrate Commission, said this Congaree River 
had given them more trouble than any other river in the United 
States, and, gentlemen, the city of Columbia is to blame. 

Mr. Liles: Why is the city of Columbia to blame? Because they 
have a contract for the completion of the canal which would solve 
the problem. We bring a keg of nails from Charleston to Columbia 
for eight cents and have to pay five cents to get it from the land¬ 
ing. The United States Government has spent $75,000.00 on the 
Wateree River and there never has been but one boat up that 
river. 

Mr. Sinkler: Mr. Robertson was interested in floating your bonds? 
Yes, sir, he agreed to float them. 

Mr. Sinkler: But suddenly thereafter he prevented the floating 
of your bonds, did he? I don’t know who did it, but the papers were 
lost and the engineers never did come down. 

Mr. Christensen: What was the cause? What Mr. Robertson 
hoped to do was to be relieved of his obligation of digging the 
canal by agreeing to put the electric line to the landing. 

Mr. Liles: Who do you feel stopped the sale of the bonds in 
New York? I say this, Mr. Robertson did not keep his promise 
to me after putting me to considerable expense of going to New 
York, but on the other hand, kept my papers and they finally 
turned up in Columbia after a proposition had been made to your 
Legislature. 

Mr. Christensen: What reason do you assign for Mr. Robert¬ 
son’s action in this matter? Because the immediate opening of the 


55 


Columbia Canal would have been demanded by the public if we had 
put the boat line on. 

Mr. Liles: When you approached Mr. Robertson and he agreed 
to float those bonds, he didn’t anticipate that he would be required 
to open the canal? I think he thought if he floated them he would 
be relieved of opening the canal. 

Mr. Christensen: And when he found he would not, he frustrated 
your plans? The project fell through. 

Mr. Christensen: Has the War Department ever put on record 
such a statement as that you ascribed, that the reason they did not 
appropriate money is because we haven’t proper terminal facilities? 
The recommendations made by that department are contingent upon 
the opening of the canal. The engineers who have looked the situa¬ 
tion over have been in favor of opening the canal. There will be 
no trouble to have a boat line in the center of the State if this canal 
is open. 

Mr. Sinkler: Did you ever have any expert engineers to esti¬ 
mate the cost of opening the canal? I asked a contractor here to 
make an estimate of the cost and I think he said he would be willing 
to take the contract for twelve cents per yard; he estimated that 
the cost would be something less than $50,000. 

Mr. Liles: You spoke of what it meant to the State and country? 
Isn’t there a canal like that in blouston, Texas, that has developed 
the whole country? Yes, sir, but it would take an hour for me to 
tell you all about it and what it would mean to South Carolina if 
this canal was opened. 

Mr. Christensen: The Santee-Cooper Canal would lessen the 
distance seventy-two miles? Yes, sir. 

Mr. Christensen: That would be seventy-two miles nearer to 
Charleston than to Georgetown? Yes. 

Mr. Boyd: Do the railroads have to meet the river rates? 
They are twenty per cent, higher, but when we get this canal open, 
they will have to meet our rates. 

STATEMENT BY MR. G. A. GUIGNARD. 

I didn’t come down to have anything special to say; I thought it 
was a public hearing, and I wanted to hear what they had to say. 
r am especially interested in the navigation of this river, and would 
like to get our boats up to this street. I think water transportation 
is very important. It affects not only this community, but other 
])arts of the State. If we can get water transportation, Columbia 


56 


will be a distributing point for lower freight rates. We have had on 
this boat line since 1913, and we have to stop below the city, at 
Granby landing, about three miles, and it costs us five cents per 
hundred pounds to get the freight up here. We have to pay one-half 
as much to get the freight from the landing up to the city as we 
charge to bring it from Georgetown. 

By Mr. Liles: Isn’t that Government work that is being done, 
done for the purpose of opening the channel in the river, and isn’t 
that being done by the Federal Government as the result of the 
effort of somebody to make the river navigable in lieu of the opening 
of the canal? I have understood that. I have no proof, however. 
In 1908 we had a freshet, and it was filled right up; they repaired it, 
cind it was finished in 1915. Three or four boats came up when the 
dam was first built, and when it was repaired in 1916 my company 
V/ as able to get up; the water then washed into the channel and we 
cannot come up unless the water is very high. I saw this Govern¬ 
ment dredge dredging out the channel this morning. It runs diago¬ 
nally across the river, and if a freshet were to come it would fill up 
tomorrow. The engineers say they were instructed to build that 
dam. 

My Mr. Boyd: What is it for? The dam was built to raise the 
water eight feet, and that was supposed to cover the rocks. 

By Mr. Boyd: What for? For navigation—to let the boats 
come up. 

By Mr. Boyd: Are they developing any water power? No. If 
this canal is opened on down they estimate they can get three 
thousand more horsepower. We are interested in navigation, and 
that channel is impracticable. If you were to get out of that 
channel, you might strike the rocks, and our captain of our boats 
doesn’t want to come up. We have to give them a release when 
they go through. We can get up when the water is high. It would 
help navigation if we could get up to Gervais street. 

By Mr. Sinkler: What is the name of your company? The 
Columbia Railway and Navigation Company. We operate between 
here and Georgetown. 

By Mr. Liles: Would your company be willing to make a propo¬ 
sition to buy the canal ? I don’t know, sir; I hadn’t thought of that. 

By Mr. Christensen: Who is president of your company? I am. 

By Mr. Liles : Is Mr. Williams associated with you ? Yes, sir; he 
is vice president. 


57 


By Mr. Liles; If that canal was completed, would the Government 
work amount to anything? They are spending $8,000.00 a year for 
operating that dam, and I think that would be unnecessary. 

By Mr. Boyd: There is enough water at that point to float a boat 
over the dam when this is done? Yes. 

By Mr. Boyd: Is it your opinion that this Government work would 
be unnecessary if the canal was opened? That was what the canal 
was intended for, and I think the engineers say it would be a good 
thing for it would do away with their work. 

By Mr. Christensen: If this canal should be completed to Rocky 
Branch, the work done by the Government would be of no use to 
navigation? We would have something very much better, and the 
Government engineers will tell you that. 

By Mr. Boyd: I don’t know anything about your business, but 
have you any engineers who have made an estimate of the expense 
of completing the canal to Rocky Branch? Yes, sir; I have made 
an estimate. 

By Mr. Boyd: Your own engineers? Yes, sir. We had two 
engineers who made estimates as to the cost. 

By Mr. Liles: The Commission would like to have a copy of these 
estimates. Would you file it with the Attorney General? Yes, sir. 
I had Mr. Weston and Mr. Haskill. They just made an estimate 
of digging the canal. 

April 17, 1917. 

Messrs. B. L. Abney and J. Fraser Lyon, Columbia, S. C. 

Gentlemen: At a meeting of the Canal Commission, held this day, 
the following resolution was unanimously adopted: 

“Upon motion, it was ordered that the Commission address a letter 
to Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon requesting that they 
submit in writing to the Commission the terms upon which they 
will serve the Commission as assistant counsel to the Attorney Gen¬ 
eral in connection with the Columbia Canal litigation.” 

A prompt reply thereto is requested, addressing same in care of 
the Attorney General. 

Very respectfully. 

Secretary Canal Commission. 

April 21, 1917. 

J. T. Liles, Esq., Secretary Canal Commission, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., enclos¬ 
ing copy of a resolution which you state was passed at a meeting of 


58 


your Commission which requests us to submit in writing the terms 
we “will serve as assistant counsel to the Attorney General in con¬ 
nection with the Columbia Canal litigation.” 

At the request of the members present at your meeting of the 2d 
inst., we attended upon you and this matter was fully discussed. 
We left you feeling assured that we had a clear and distinct under¬ 
standing with you, certainly that was our understanding. This 
arrangement, as we understood it, was: 1. That we had been 
employed to assist the Attorney General in all matters which were 
contemplated by the provisions of the Act to be carried out and 
enforced to protect the interests of the State, and for the professional 
services so rendered would receive the amount ($2,000.00) appro¬ 
priated by Section 9, Item 7 of the General Appropriation Act, 
1917, which specifically states that such amount was for “expenses 
in connection with Columbia Canal litigation under the Act of 
1917.” 2. That in the event that the value of services would far 

exceed the appropriation for such ‘expenses that the committee 
would, if they deemed proper and fair to us, make recommendation 
in their report to the Legislature for allowanec of such sum as they 
thought proper, without consultation with us, we leaving the matter 
entirely to you and not obligatory upon you to urge it. 

One of us, in stating his acceptance of the ofifer, made it clear that 
after reading the provisions of the Act he considered the appropria¬ 
tion was very small and that if it involved representation of merely 
private interests of like character would not be a fair compensation, 
but that the proffer was made to represent the interests of the State 
and the enforcement of contracts made with it under the Act of 1887 
and Acts amendatory thereof; that no one could expect the State to 
pay such fees as private clients usually paid; that as a citizen he 
should feel that the matter of compensation was secondary and not 
primary, and in view of the complimentary way in which the Attor¬ 
ney General had requested our assistance he felt willing to accept. 
In this the other of us joined, and, as we heretofore stated, believed 
our employment by the Attorney General had been approved upon 
the terms agreed upon. 

We think a reading and consideration of the provisions of the 
Act will quite clearly lead you to see that it is impossible for us to 
state in detail what we would charge for each successive item or 
matter, advice, conduct of proceedings or what may be anticipated 
as to the nature of the services required. 


59 


We still desire to be considered as actuated by an earnest wish to 
serve our State and people in this matter rather than too much 
emphasis should be laid upon the professional making of money, and 
want to evince a proper sense of appreciation of the offer of the 
Attorney General to assist him in the matter that the General Assem¬ 
bly has expressed clearly its opinion that he should have assistance 
on account of the large amount of litigation he is now and may be 
hereafter engaged in for the State besides other special duties of his 
office. 

This being our opinion and if it meets with your wishes it will be 
entirely satisfactory to us that you shall determine the fee upon 
every item so far as it can be stated, or may designate the amount for 
the whole services rendered in assisting the Attorney General in 
connection with the Columbia Canal litigation, or such fees and 
services as the Attorney General shall approve under the terms of 
the Act. The payment of such fees to be within such time as may 
be reasonable or customary in the office of the Attorney General or 
as is intended by the Act. 

We are, 

Very respectfully, 

B. L. ABNEY, 

J. FRASER LYON. 

MINUTES LEGISLATIVE CANAL COMMISSION HELD 
AT CHARLESTON, MAY 23, 1917. 

It having been found impossible to meet on April 26, as pro¬ 
vided by vote of the Commission, a meeting was called by the Chair¬ 
man, after consulting the members of the Commission to be held 
May 23d, at Charleston, in the office of Senator Sinkler. Meeting 
called to order at 10 o’clock as provided in the call referred to 
above. Present: Messrs, T. H. Peeples, J. W. Boyd, Huger Sink¬ 
ler and Niels Christensen. Senator Sinkler acted as chairman at the 
request of Chairman Peeples. Senator Christensen acted as tem¬ 
porary secretary in the absence of Secretary Lyles. 

Minutes of the last meeting read and approved. 

Committee recessed to meet at the office of Major Youngberg 
at the Custom House, and there discussed the means of securing 
an investigation and report by the army engineers on the develop¬ 
ment of the Columbia Canal. Suggestions from Major Youngberg 
were invited, and he made several of value to the Commission. 


60 


Committtee returned to Senator Sinkler’s office, and resumed the 
session there. Motion made by Senator Christensen that commit¬ 
tee of two be appointed by the Chair to go to Washington and secure 
the assistance of the State Congressional Delegation in having Con¬ 
gress pass legislation necessary to have a full and complete survey 
and report on the prospective completion of the Columbia Canal 
made by army engineers. Motion unanimously carried. 

The Chair appointed Messrs. Sinkler and Boyd on this committee. 

Letter from Attorneys Abney and Lyon read and considered; 
ordered made a part of the record. 

Moved by Mr. Boyd that a letter be written to Messrs. Abney 
and Lyon, in answer to their communication, as follows: 

“Gentlemen: Your letter of the 21st ultimo was duly received, 
and carefully considered by the Commission. We are pleased to 
note the spirit and motive actuating the letter, and that so far as the 
compensation is concerned, you are willing to leave the amounts 
and time of payments to the just and sound discretion of the com¬ 
mittee. 

After due consideration, it was the sense of the committee‘that 
one-half of the amount appropriated by the Act of 1917, to wit: 
$1,000, should be paid you forthwith as a retainer. 

Trusting that this is agreeable, and assuring you that the Com¬ 
mission is actuated by the same sense of service to the State, we 
are. 

Very respectfully,” 

Motion carried unanimously. Moved that the Attorney General 
be instructed to draw a warrant for $1,000 to the order of Messrs. 
B. L. Abney and J. Fraser Lyon, jointly, or two warrants, one to 
the order of each of the above, for $500 each. 

Motion carried unanimously. 

A letter from the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company 
by Edwin W. Robertson, President, dated April 25, 1917, read and 
considered, ordered made a part of the record. 

Moved by Mr. Christensen, that the offer made in the above 
letter is hereby refused in toto, and that the Attorney General so 
notify President Robertson. Motion carried unanimously. 

Committee adjourned at 1 :25, subject to the call of the Chairman. 

Columbia, S. C., April 25, 1917. 

“To the Honorable, the Attorney General and the Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Repre- 


61 


sentatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Sen¬ 
ate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of 
the House of Representatives, Authorized to Act Under and 
by Virtue of the Act of the General Assembly of South Caro¬ 
lina, Approved the 12th Day of March, A. D. 1917, Relating 
to the Columbia Canal. 

Gentlemen: The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company 
would respectfully make to you the following offer of compromise 
under the terms of the Act of the General Assembly of South Caro¬ 
lina, approved the 12th day of March, A. D. 1917, relating to the 
Columbia Canal. 

The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company would call to 
your attention that the proponents of the Act of 1917, at the hear¬ 
ings before committees of the General Assembly, represented that 
the Columbia Canal could be completed below Gervais street down 
to the Congaree River a few yards above the mouth of Rocky 
Branch, as it is claimed was contemplated by the Act of December 
24, 1887, at an expense of seventy-five thousand ($75,000) dollars. 
The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company takes the position 
that there is no moral or legal obligation or duty resting upon it, 
as owner of the Columbia Canal, or otherwise, to complete the 
canal below Gervais street, as stated above, and that it has violated 
no condition contained in the Act of 1887, or otherwise imposed. 
Notwithstanding this, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Com¬ 
pany as a compromise and settlement of this whole matter will 
pay to the State of South Carolina fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars 
for a release from any condition, obligation or duty on said com¬ 
pany as the owner of the Columbia Canal, or on the owner of the 
Columbia Canal, whoever the same may be, to extend or complete 
the canal below Gervais street down to the Congaree River a few 
yards above the mouth of Rocky Branch, or otherwise, as it is 
claimed was contemplated and required by the Act of December 
24, 1887, entitled “An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees 
of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia 
Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtances, 
and to develop the same.” 

The condition of this offer is, that if the State of South Carolina 
shall extend or complete said Columbia Canal, then all property 
rights and interests in the same and its appurtances, increments and 
improvements as so extended or completed are to vest and inure to 
and in the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company or the pres- 


62 


ent owner of the Columbia Canal, subject to all burdens, duties 
and obligations imposed upon the owner of the said Columbia Canal 
under and by virtue of the Act of December 24, 1887, excepting, 
of course, the obligation or duty to extend or complete the Colum¬ 
bia Canal below Gervais street'down to the Congaree River, or 
otherwise. 

The above sum of money is to be paid upon the approval of> 
an Act duly enacted by the General Assembly of South Carolina 
expressly reciting and incorporating the terms of the compromise 
above specified and enacting the same in the form of a deed of 
release from the State, for the benefit of this Company and all and 
any other persons or corporations who may have or may claim to 
have any right, title or interest in said Columbia Canal or its appur¬ 
tenances, increments or improvements growing out of and derived 
from and through said Act of 1887 or otherwise, and also providing 
for the vesting in the present owner of the Columbia Canal all 
rights and interest in said canal as extended or completed, if same 
should be extended or completed as above referred to. 

This is a privileged communication and is made as an offer of 
compromise, and it is expressly stated that this is no admission 
that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company or any other 
person or corporation claiming or having any right, title or inter¬ 
est in said Columbia Canal, its premises, appurtenances, increments 
or improvements, is in anywise in default under any condition, 
obligation or duty imposed by the Act of 1887 or otherwise, and in 
the event that this offer of compromise is not accepted, this com¬ 
munication is not to be made use of or divulged in any controversy, 
proceeding or litigation that may subsequently arise concerning or 
aff'ecting this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

By Edwin W. Robkrtson, President. 

May 28th, 1917. 

Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, President, Columbia Railway, Gas & 
Electric Company, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Dear Sir: At a meeting of the Commission, named under the 
Act approved the 12th of March, 1917, called and held at Charles¬ 
ton on the 23d instant, your communication of the 28th of April, 
1917, enclosing proposition to said Commission, was read to and 
considered by the Commission and ordered made a part of its rec¬ 
ords. 


63 


The Commission, upon motion unanimously carried, rejected the 
offer made in your letter and the same was “refused in toto,” and 
the Attorney General was requested to notify you of such action. 
I beg, therefore, to advise you accordingly. 

Should you see fit to submit any other or further proposition 
with regard to the control and disposition of the Columbia Canal, 
which was placed by said Act under the control and disposition 
of said Commission, which propositions shall contain such arrange¬ 
ments as may be satisfactory to this Commission, the same will be 
considered within the time allowed by statute, to wit: ninety days 
from the approval of said Act. Unless such arrangements or agree¬ 
ments of the parties claiming to have any right, title or interest in 
the premises be satisfactory, we will proceed in accordance with 
the directions given to us by the terms of said Act. 

Respectfully yours, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General. 

Spartanburg, S. C., May 30, 1917. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PROCURING FED¬ 
ERAL SURVEY. 

To The Columbia Canal Commission: 

I beg leave to submit the following report: 

Pursuant to action of the Commission, at its meeting in the city 
of Charleston on May 23d, 1917, appointing two members of the 
Commission to go to Washington with reference to procuring Fed¬ 
eral survey, and my appointment on said committee and arrange¬ 
ments there made, and in further compliance with instructions in 
letter to me dated May 25th, 1917, from the Hon. Huger Sinkler 
(the other member designated to go, who was also Chairman of 
the Charleston meeting), directing me to proceed alone in event of 
Mr. Sinkler’s inability to go, I proceeded to Washington, and 
remained there two days, May 28th and 29th. 

On my arrival I called upon all of the Senators and Members of 
Congress from South Carolina and discussed separately with all 
who were accessible the business for which the committee was 
appointed, and enlisted their interest in behalf of our work, and 
procured the very valuable co-operation and assistance of them. 
With the assistance we procured an audience with the Hon. John 
N. Small, Chairman of the House Committee on Rivers and Har¬ 
bors, and were permitted to explain to him, for the committee, the 


64 


details of the matter. After which, having procured his co-opera¬ 
tion, we procured an audience with the office of the Chief of Engi¬ 
neers of the United States Army (Col. Henry C. Newcomer in 
charge). Col. Newcomer permitted us to explain in detail our sit¬ 
uation. In short, the result of this conference was the drafting of 
what was regarded as the proper amendment to the pending River 
and Harbor Bill to accomplish our purpose and a letter from Col. 
Newcomer transmitting the same to Hon. John N. Small, Chairman 
of the River and Harbor Committee, upon which further confer¬ 
ence was had with Mr, Small, who approved the proposed amend¬ 
ment and assured us, in behalf of his committee, that the amend¬ 
ment would be proposed to the bill as committee amendment. He 
further assured us that the report on this bill would be made within 
the next few days, and that the President has designated this bill 
as one of the war measures for the consideration of the present 
Congress, which, Mr. Small explained to us, insures the considera¬ 
tion of the bill by the present Congress. The pending bill,—being 
H. R. 4285, “A bill making appropriations for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har¬ 
bors, and for other purposes,”—contains: 

“Section 4. That for examinations, surveys, and contingencies 
for rivers and harbors for which there may be no special appro¬ 
priation, the sum of $200,000 is hereby appropriated: Provided, 
That no preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimate for 
new works other than those designated in this or some prior Act or 
joint resolution shall be made: Provided, further. That after the reg¬ 
ular or formal reports made as required by law on any examination, 
survey, project, or work under way or proposed are submitted no 
supplemental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless 
ordered by a concurrent resolution of Congress: And provided, fur¬ 
ther, That the Government shall not be deemed to have entered 
upon any project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor 
mentioned in this Act until funds for the commencement of the 
proposed work shall have been actually appropriated by law. 

The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause 
preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at the following 
named localities, and a sufficient sum to pay the costs thereof may 
be allotted from the amount provided in this section (enumerat¬ 
ing localities; there appearing on line two, page 32) Lynches River, 
South Carolina.” 


65 


The amendment agreed upon is as follows: 

Amend H. R. 4285. Insert, following line two, of Sec. 4 (page 
32, printed l)ill) : “Broad and Congaree Rivers and Columbia Canal 
at or near Columbia, South Carolina, with a view to combined 
improvements for navigation and water power, consideration being 
given to any proposition of local co-operation.” 

From information from South Carolina members, the Chairman 
of the River and Harbor Committee, and War Department (Engi¬ 
neering Corps), it appears that this is the proper amendmeni under 
any circumstances to accomplish the purpose desired by us. At any 
rate, it is the only available channel at the present Congress, due to 
the fact that it is a fixed policy of the present Congress to consider 
nothing except that which is regarded as war measures. 

Congressman Lever has very kindly consented to keep in touch 
with the progress of this bill and amendment, and to advise us of 
any developments. He has no apprehension other than that the 
bill with the amendment will be adopted in due course. 

All of which is 

Respectfully submitted, 

JESSE W. BOYD. 

Columbia, S. C., June 4, 1917. 

Pursuant to the call of the Chairman the Commission met in the 
office of the Attorney General, at twelve (12) o’clock m. Mem¬ 
bers of the Commission present were: Messrs. Peeples, Boyd, 
Sinkler and Liles. 

Minutes of last meeting read and approved. At the request of 
the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, Assistant Attorneys 
for the State, were present. 

The following letter received from Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, 
Pres., was brought to the attention of the Commission and Attor¬ 
neys : 

“Columbia, S. C., May 31, 1917. 

Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Chairman Canal Com¬ 
mission, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 
28, 1917, reporting the abrupt action of your Commission on May 
23, five days previous to your letter, taken on the proposition of 
the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, submitted to you, 
as Chairman, on April 25, twenty-eight days previous to the meeh 
ing of the Commission. 


66 


Your letter of March 28th was the first intimation this Company 
had of the desire of your Commission to receive any proposition 
from it and we then assumed that your Commission was at least will¬ 
ing to reach some compromise of this dispute as contemplated in 
Section five of the Act. Accordingly I wrote you on March 30th 
frankly advising you of the necessity and time involved in calling a 
meeting of the directors of this Company and telling you of my 
intention to do this and advise you of the proposition I might be 
authorized to make. The meeting of the directors of this Com¬ 
pany was duly called and held in New York on April 12th, but 
I was unexpectedly detained there in the work I was doing as 
Chairman of a Committee of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce. 
In the meantime, about April 17th, Mr. Lyles appeared before your 
Commission and having explained the unexpected and unavoidable 
delay caused by my absence, was given to understand that your 
Commission desired this Company to submit a definite proposition 
in writing to you as Chairman and that then a meeting would be 
called, at which this Company would be invited or at least given 
the opportunity to appear for a reasonable and friendly discussion, 
in a real effort to compromise any differences that might exist. It 
was in accordance with this understanding that our proposition of 
April 25th was written and in our letter of transmissal we said: 
‘We are ready to appear before the Commission at its pleasure." 

Before making our proposition of April 25th, we had been given 
no indication of the attitude of your Commission and were unable 
to determine whether it had chiefly in mind the promotion of the 
claimed public interest by way of navigation or the securing to 
the State of compensation for property rights claimed to be vested 
in it. Our bona fide information has always been that the suggested 
navigation purposes were impracticable if not impossible of accom¬ 
plishment and we really thought that your Commission had chiefly 
in mind the securing to the State of compensation for property 
rights claimed by it—yet we placed our proposition upon a com¬ 
promise basis of the very claims of the proponents of this legisla¬ 
tion, knowing that the State could make use of this money to pro¬ 
mote navigation via the canal if this was thought best. We remain 
still at a loss to see how the proposition requested from this Com¬ 
pany could have been made upon any other basis, and it must be 
conceded to have been at least a substantial and bona fide offer. 

Notwithstanding these circumstances this Company stands today, 
within eleven days of the expiration of the time allowed, without 


67 


having been invited or afforded the opportunity to appear before 
your Commission for a reasonable discussion of its proposition— 
this Company is today utterly uninformed either of the objections 
that your Commission has to its proposition of April 25th or as to 
what kind or character of proposition your Commission would deem 
advisable and proper to protect the interests of the State in this 
matter. 

If your Commission deems it proper to enter into any reasonable 
discussion of this matter for the purpose of accomplishing a com¬ 
promise, as contemplated by Section five of the Act, or if your Com¬ 
mission should see fit to indicate what proposition would meet its 
approval, this Company stands ready and willing, as it has stated 
it has always been, to give the suggestions of the Commission the 
consideration, confidence and privilege to which they are entitled 
and which it respectfully asks for this communication. 

This is a privleged communication written in an effort to com¬ 
promise and is no admission of any rights in the State of South 
Carolina as claimed under this Act or otherwise. 

In order to economize time, we are sending a copy of this com¬ 
munication direct to each member of your Commission. 

Respectfully, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

By Edwin W. Robertson, President 

Upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, unanimously adopted, the following 
letter in reply to the above letter was ordered addressed to Mr. 
Edwin W. Robertson, Pres.: 

June 4, 1917. 

Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, Pres., Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 
Co., Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 31st 
ultimo. 

Desirious that there should be no misunderstanding and in order 
to correct the errors stated in such letter, in which you claim that 
you have not been given sufficient time or accorded sufficient hear¬ 
ing, I will first make a statement from the records. 

The committee has not construed the Act, nor can we perceive 
that anyone else would, to require us to make a proposition to you or 
any other party. The manner of our proceeding is left, by statute, 
to our good sense and to our fairness, having solely in view the 
interests of the public and State at large, as set forth in the statutes 
of this State covering a period of over thirty years. 


68 


The present Act was approved on March 12, 1917, three weeks 
after the adjournment of the Legislature. Doubtless you, your¬ 
self, and certainly your representatives who were apparently in 
opposition to the measure knew that it had passed and was before 
the Governor for three weeks, and certainly after its approval on 
March 12th, your knowledge became conclusive; and certainly under 
provisions 2 and 5 of the said Act you knew that the special privi¬ 
lege was given to you of making such arrangements or agreements 
with this Commission, within ninety days from its approval, and 
that the Commission would entertain any and determine whether any 
proposition you might make to us would be satisfactory, which 
time expires on the 10th of this month. During this entire period 
and up to the date of the first meeting called by the Commission you 
certainly had all this time to consider what proposition or propo¬ 
sitions you could present to this Commission. You sat perfectly 
quiet and did nothing; you never sought any meeting of the Com¬ 
mission or gave any attention to the privileges which had been 
accorded you. 

On March 22d a meeting of the Commission was had, which 
was known before and published in the newspapers of your own 
city. But no attention was paid to that, and at that meeting there 
was no communication from you whatever. A resolution was offered 
by Senator Sinkler, and adopted, that the Attorney General notify 
all interested parties that a hearing would be granted them at four 
o’clock p. m. on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. My recol¬ 
lection is that a notice of the meeting was carried in the newspapers 
published in this city. But that particular matter may be put out 
of view, inasmuch as on the 28th of March a letter was addressed 
to you notifying you of such meeting and its objects, pointing out 
the provisions of the Act and directing your attention thereto. 

As I had stated that if the time suggested in my letter of the 
28th, did not give you sufficient time it was for you to state what 
time you would be ready to take the matter up. In your suggestion 
you stated that it was necessary for you to confer with other inter¬ 
ests before appearing before the Commission, with whom you were 
arranging such conference on April 12th, and as soon as that meet¬ 
ing had been concluded you would write the Commission requesting 
that “you call a meeting of your Commission.” It is true that you 
stated that you suggested that you would be glad to meet with the 
Commission for a discussion of this matter, but you deemed it only 
fair to advise us that you would be in no position to make or receive 


69 


any definite proposition until you had received the authority to act, 
which you expected to be given you at the meeting above referred to. 

The meeting, which was called for April 2d, was held and your 
reply was read to the Commission and became a part of the records 
of its minutes. In view of your letter, no action was taken with 
regard to the Columbia Canal, but the time was, as asked by you, 
extended. 

On April 17th, at a meeting called pursuant to notice, the repre¬ 
sentative of your Company, Mr. Lyles, appeared and made a state¬ 
ment which was filed as a record of the proceedings. He requested 
an extension of time on account of the “unexpected circumstances 
we (that is, Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company) are not in 
position to talk to the Commission this morning.” In view of this 
statement and notwithstanding the length of time which had clasped, 
you were allowed to take such time as was convenient to you, until 
the next meeting of the Commission which was called for April 
26':h. 

In a communication, of date, April 25th, 1917, you submitted 
“an ofifer of compromise,” under the terms of the Act of March 12, 
1917, relating to the Columbia Canal, and also enclosed a letter in 
which you stated you enclosed a communication to the Commission 
and used the following language: “We are ready to appear before 
the Commission at its pleasure.” I acknowledged the receipt of 
your letter on April 28th, and stated it would be made a record of 
the office, and called a meeting for May 23d, in Charleston. The 
meeting which had been called for April 26th, was postponed until 
the 23d of May, because of the official duties of the officers of the 
committee which prevented their being present,—notice of the mat¬ 
ter was carried in the press. 

At the meeting of the 23d of May, as I communicated to you, 
your ofifer of compromise was read and considered and ordered 
made a part of the records, and, upon motion, it was unanimously 
refused in toto, and the Attorney General directed to so notify you. 

Notwithstanding this statement in resume, you seem to com¬ 
plain that you have not been given time enough. To do what? 
First, to have a discussion with us, at which you were neither in 
position to make any definite propositions, definite arrangements, 
nor to reach definite conclusions, nor to be bound by any sug¬ 
gestions you should make. This Commission has been created 
for the purpose of protecting the interests of the State in a prac- 


70 


tical and positive way, without duplicating its meetings and increas¬ 
ing its expenses to be paid by the State. 

Your letter further states that March 28th was the first intima¬ 
tion your Company had of the desire of the Commission to receive 
any proposition from it. 

In view of the recitation of these meetings made to you, how 
can you make such a statement, when, on April 17th, your repre¬ 
sentative appeared before the committee and asked to have the 
meeting adjourned on account of your absence and that you were 
preparing a communication with regard to the matter ? Or, how 
could you read the Act of the Legislature and make any assump¬ 
tion of the kind you state you did? And further, in view of the 
letter of the 28th of March which I mailed to you? In inviting, 
on March 28th, a proposition from you, we supposed that your 
proposition would be to the point. Instead of that, your letter, so 
far as I can read it, shows not the slightest deference to the General 
Assembly which constituted us a committee to act in behalf of it, 
and it would be stretching the most friendly vision too far to say, 
from its terms, that it was intended to be in good faith or was capa¬ 
ble of affording the basis of any reasonable or friendly discus¬ 
sion to have or to advance any real effort to compromise the dif¬ 
ferences that might exist. 

The Commission, after giving it the most courteous considera¬ 
tion that it was capable of, rejected your proposition in toto and 
we still reject it, either as a basis of any reasonable or fair com¬ 
promise, or as an effort to bring about the adjustment which the 
Legislature had in view in passing the sections of an Act to 
which I have alluded. 

You are not justified in making the statement contained in par¬ 
agraph 3 of your letter, that you had been given no intimation of 
the attitude of the Commission, etc. On the contrary, my letter to 
you calls your attention to every phase of the Act, and while the 
interests under consideration may be more directly in those who 
are now engaged in or who propose to use these streams as navi¬ 
gable, it by no means follows or can be assumed that we have any 
such thought chiefly in our minds, or propose to protect or encour¬ 
age their interests over those of other citizens, or of the interest 
which attend and depend upon the development of power upon 
the canal, so as to prevent the monopoly of the sale of power 
to the citizens of the community within reach of an operating 
plant in the city of Columbia, or to engage in other enterprises 


71 


which would be more upon an equality with other cities with regard 
to the supplying of electric power, and other opportunities of open¬ 
ing up and aiding the Government as far as we could, in promoting 
the navigable capacity of the large water streams which converge 
into the Santee River and pass by the city of Columbia. 

We are not the organ, as you would intimate, of obtaining com¬ 
pensation for property rights which are claimed by citizens equally 
interested in the property of the State, as you are; nor are we your 
organ in attempting to protect your interests at the sacrifice of 
theirs. The information which you allude to as to the practicability 
of using the streams for navigable purposes may appear to you to 
be without foundation, but so far as we are officially informed your 
information has no basis of fact, and it would be impossible so far 
as we are officially advised for you to substantiate your assertion 
by any official inspection or examination by the Federal Officers of 
the United States Government and their reports thereon. We put 
out of view any further remark upon that paragraph of your letter. 

Notwithstanding, however, that we had rejected your proposition 
we did in the most courteous way, notifying you of same; and invite 
you, if you so desire, to make any other or further proposition 
before the expiration of ninety days after the approval of the Act 
that you might desire to make and we will entertain it and give it 
due consideration. 

Any reply you may make to this letter please address to each 
member of the Commission. 

Respectfully, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Attorney General and Chairman of the Committee With Regard to 
the Columbia Canal Matters Provided for by the Act of the 
General Assembly, Approved March 12, 1917. 

The following telegram was brought to the attention of the Com¬ 
mission : 

“Charleston, S. C., June 4, 1917. 

Huger Sinkler, Care Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Colum¬ 
bia, S. C.: 

Howard Baetjer, President Mt. Vernon Mills, and I would like to 
meet Canal Commissioners, or Attorney General. Can you arrange 
an appointment for us. Baetjer could hardly reach Columbia tomor¬ 
row unless you answer quick.” 


72 


Upon motion, it was ordered that these parties be advised of the 
next meeting of this Commission, and that if they so desired the 
Commission would be glad to give them a hearing. 

Upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission adjourned to meet in 
Columbia at ten (10) o’clock a. m. on June 11, 1917. 

Columbia, S. C., June 6, 1917. 

Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, City; Hon. Niels Christensen, Beaufort, 
S. C.; Hon. Huger Sinkler, Charleston, S. C.; Hon. Jesse Boyd, 
Spartanburg, S. C.; Hon. Junius T. Liles, Orangeburg, S. C., 
Canal Commission Under Act of 1917. 

Gentlemen: We acknowledge receipt of the letter of your Chair¬ 
man, dated June 5th. 

As this communication indicates that your Commission does not 
care to enter into any discussion of the matters in controversy, or 
to give this company any opportunity of meeting your Commission 
for such purpose, notwithstanding the suggestion to this effect con¬ 
tained in our letter of May 31st, and as this communication in nowise 
relieves our ignorance as to what kind or character of proposition 
your Commission would deem advisable and proper to protect the 
interests of the State in this matter, as suggested in our letter of 
May 31st, we find ourselves with utterly no basis upon which we can 
proceed to make any further or other proposition in the premises. 

We regret that your Commission has seen fit to keep us in entire 
ignorance of its attitude in this matter and to afford us no oppor¬ 
tunity for even the most limited discussion, in an effort to adjust the 
differences involved, notwithstanding that this slight consideration 
could have been accorded us, most easily and with all convenience to 
your Commission, at your meeting held in Columbia on June 4th, of 
which we were only subsequently advised by the newspaper reports; 
at which meeting we presume our letter of May 31st was considered 
md answered. 

Respectfully, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 

By Edwin W. Robe^rtson, President. 

Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. 

Pursuant to adjournment of the Commission on June 4th, the 
Commission met at ten o’clock a. m., on June 11th, in the office of the 
Attorney General. Members of Commission present: Messrs. Pee- 


73 


pies, Sinkler and Liles. Minutes of previous meeting read and 
approved. 

Messrs. William Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, attorneys for the 
Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, appeared and made 
statements, as follows: 

Mr. Elliott: We have come before the Commission today for the 
purpose of ascertaining whether there is any possibility of our arriv¬ 
ing at an agreement with the Commission. We made an offer in 
writing to the Commission, which seemed proper, but .the off'er was 
rejected, as indicated to the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Com¬ 
pany, in toto, and that leaves us in the position of not knbwing what 
line of compromise the Commission would consider or accept. Our 
idea is to find out upon what basis there can be affected a settlement 
or compromise. 

Mr. Sinkler: I would like to ask if you have another proposition 
to make—a definite proposition to make. 

Mr. Elliott: Along what line. Senator? 

Mr. Sinkler: Any line that you see fit. 

Mr. Elliott: The situation is this: We don’t know, from the atti¬ 
tude of the Commission, whether they want a money settlement, a 
completion of the canal, if so, upon what terms; we don’t know what 
the idea of the Commission is as to proposing some compromise 
measure. It is very difficult for us to make an offer to meet with 
the views of the Commission without knowing their views. 

Mr. Sinkler: You have made us one definite proposition for so 
much money, which the Commission rejected, and it seems to me 
you should make another definite proposition. We are here to 
receive any proposition of any kind or character you see fit to 
offer us. 

Mr. Elliott: Was the proposition rejected because the amount 
named was insufficient—was that the basis of the rejection? 

Mr. Sinkler: The proposition was rejected because it was unsatis¬ 
factory to the Commission. 

Mr. Elliott: Unsatisfactory because we mentioned the money con¬ 
sideration, or because of some other reasons? 

Mr. Sinkler: Simply because we didn’t think it a proper or satis¬ 
factory proposition. 

Mr. Elliott: Has the Commission in mind a proposition which, if 
we make, will be accepted ? 


74 


Mr. Sinkler: My attitude in this matter is simply this: We are 
here to receive any definite proposition or propositions from you all, 
and not to offer any propositions to you. 

Mr. Elliott: We understand that. 

Mr. Sinkler: If you all can offer, no matter what that proposition 
is, a concrete proposition, a definite proposition, we would be glad to> 
hear it; those are my views. 

Mr. Peeples: I don’t think, Mr. Elliott, the Commission is in a 
position to suggest any proposition to you gentlemen. We can only 
entertain and pass upon the propositions offered to the Commission 

Mr. Elliott: It seems to me the Commission should define its 
policy so far as to say whether they will accept a proposition along 
certain lines, or indicate in some way what their views are. 

Mr. Sinkler: Have you any proposition to place before the Com¬ 
mission proposing to complete the canal and carry out the contract 
with the State ? 

Mr. Elliott: Mr. Sinkler, the offer which we made in writing con¬ 
tained the offer of an amount and then, I may say, proposes an offer 
of compromise. Was it objected to because of that amount or 
because the terms contained therein were not satisfactory? 

Mr. Peeples: The offer didn’t meet the approval of the Commis- 
!on in any way. 

Mr. Elliott: Because of the terms or amount stated ? 

Mr. Peeples: Just as expressed in the minutes. 

Mr. Elliott: Senator Sinkler, answering your question, if the 
Commission has formulated any plans or specifications or terms as 
to how the canal can be completed, we might consider that as a basis 
of compromise. We don’t know what construction the Commission 
has placed on the Act—the obligation of the Street Railway Com¬ 
pany or anyone else. We would like to ask the Commission this 
question: If we increase the amount named in the offer which our 
clients made, is there, by that means, any way of arriving at an 
agreement with the Commission ? 

Mr. Sinkler: We could not act on any offer until that offer is sub¬ 
mitted, and, as I stated before, Mr. Elliott, we would be willing to- 
-ntertain any proposition, one, two or three, or any number of propo¬ 
sitions that you desire to make, but we can’t act upon a proposition 
until we receive it in definite form. 

Mr. Elliott: Is the Commission ready and willing to recommend 
to the Legislature a proposition if it meets the approval of the Com- 
uission? 


75 


Mr. Sinkler: We must see that proposition before we can exercise- 
our discretion. 

Mr. Liles: Have you gentlemen in mind a proposition you desire 
-o make? 

Mr. Elliott: It is very difficult to answer that question because of 
the numerous angles of the thing. We are desirous of arriving at 
an agreement or settlement or compromise with the Commission. 

Mr. Liles: You have considered, though, another proposition that 
you will make to the Commission? 

Mr. Elliott: We have considered every proposition that we 
thought should be acceptable to the Commission. We don’t want 
) strike in the dark, but we want to arrive at an agreement and are 
willing to do whatever is necessary, and we would like to discuss the 
proposition freely. We are not here with the desire to make up 
any record, but we want to arrive at a settlement. 

Mr. Sinkler: We don’t know how we can arrive at any settlement 
until the proposition is submitted to us in definite form. You sub¬ 
mitted one proposition, and it was not accepted. If you will submit 
any number of propositions in writing, then we will know how to 
answer. 

Mr. Elliott: Just consider our position for one moment—take the 
question of the advisability of co-operating with the city of Colum¬ 
bia. It is, I understand, proposing to issue bonds for the purpose 
of buying a municipal warehouse, and it is, I understand, necessary 
o get the co-operation of Congress. The Committee on Rivers 
and Harbors has refused to appropriate money where the municipal 
warehouses are not owned by the city, but will appropriate money 
where they are owned by the city. The city of Columbia is ready to 
buy municipal warehouses. We don’t know but that some compro¬ 
mise may be made, the State’s co-operating with the city, which will 
be advantageous to every one. If there is any way of discussing it, 
we would like to do so, but it is very difficult to make a series of 
propositions without knowing whether the Commission is going to 
accept or refuse them. 

Mr. Liles: In your consideration of this matter, have the people 
you represent thought of proposing to this Commission to carry out 
your contract with the State ? 

Mr. Elliott: They have thought of it from every angle. The ques¬ 
tion of the contract with the Sate is a question involving the possi¬ 
bility of a variety of constructions. The only way we can arrive at 
that is to join upon some ground and discuss the proposition freely.. 


76 


Mr. Liles: Mr. Elliott, if there are dififerent constructions, and I 
suppose there are, have you people considered proposing to the Com¬ 
mission to carry out the contract in accordance with your construc¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. Elliott: Senator, our consideration of the Act puts a light on 
the thing from our standpoint—well, we don’t view the thing as 
placing at this time any burden upon us. Without prejudice, we are 
ready to avoid the legal discussions and arrive at a settlement. I 
will make this suggestion: We are both here sparring on the record, 
0 to speak, because we are being asked questions on each side which 
neither side is answering; I make the proposition that we go into an 
informal discussion to ascertain if there is any possibility of our 
arriving at a settlement. 

Mr. Peeples: The Commission, as indicated to you by Senator 
Sinkler, has nothing to go upon until a proposition is laid before'it, 
but, nevertheless, if it is the pleasure of the Commission to concur in 
Mr. Elliott’s suggestion, we will do so. 

Mr. Sinkler: I presume you mean by informal that no notes be 
taken of our discussion. 

Mr. Elliott: I mean in an eflfort to compromise, which is the law 
and the policy of the Courts, not to take advantage of anyone or 
anything that is said in the effort to compromise, and we would be 
willing to discuss this thing informally in that spirit. 

Mr. Peeples: You mean that no statements made under those con¬ 
ditions shall be binding or come up afterwards ? 

Mr. Elliott: Yes; I mean that. Our position is this: Everything 
we say we are bound to, and the Commission is not. 

Mr. Liles: From your statement a moment ago, you take the posi- 
on that there is no burden upon the Columbia Railway, Gas & 
Electric Company at this time. Is that statement based upon the 
assumption that the contract is null and void? 

Mr. Elliott: We are here to endeavor to arrive at an agreement 
with the Commission under the terms of the Act. If we are going 
' o discuss the legal aspects of the case, I don’t think it will profit us 
in arriving at an agreement. I will say, however, taking the legal 
aspect, we deny any liability for the completion of the canal, and 
claim that we have fulfilled our duty in the premises entirely, and 
propositions we make, as we made before, are privileged proposi¬ 
tions for the sake of a settlement and without prejudice. 

Mr. Sinkler: Gentlemen, in the first place, speaking for myself 
individually, and I think for the Commission, it is not a question of 


77 


sparring on the record, but our position is that we are very glad to 
entertain any proposition you gentlemen may make, and we will be 
glad, for the interest of all concerned, if this matter could be amica¬ 
bly determined upon, but it is also the position of the Commission 
lO have something in clear, definite form, in the nature of one propo¬ 
sition, two propositions, or a series of propositions to act upon. The 
kind and character of the propositions and number of propositions 
is a matter for you to decide. When we receive them, we can then 
act upon them intelligently; until we receive them we can do noth¬ 
ing. 

Mr. Elliott: What answer does the Commission make to my prop¬ 
osition, in an effort to fulfil the wishes of the Act and the spirit of 
the law, to enter into a discussion for the sake of arriving at a com¬ 
promise, which will not be binding upon either party and be privi¬ 
leged ? 

Mr. Sinkler: I think that is sound doctrine, and has always and 
should always receive the approval of the Courts to prevent any 
litigation on any subject whatever. We represent, not a private 
corporation, but the State and a political body. Any proposition 
ou gentlemen may make we will treat without prejudice, and you 
are at liberty to make them along those lines. So far as our minutes 
are concerned, why, as you know, we are compelled to keep those 
minutes. So far as the propositions you may offer, we will be very 
glad to receive them, without prejudice, in the sense we always 
extend to each other in striving to arrive at a settlement of a case 
without prejudice. 

Mr. Elliott: I would like to ask the Commission again, not for the 
sake of being persistent, but with a definite object in view,—refer¬ 
ring to our written proposition to the Commission, is there anything 
in that letter, so far as the terms of the letter are concerned, which 
are objectionable to the Commission or a bar to a settlement? If 
the letter does contain any matter that is a bar, we would like to dis¬ 
cuss the revision of it, and we may find something that would meet 
the minds of the Commission. 

Mr. Sinkler: The Commission has considered what we thought a 
definite proposition. That proposition is unsatisfactory to the Com¬ 
mission, and, therefore, any other proposition in order would be on 
your part. 

Mr. Elliott: If we were to consider increasing the amount men¬ 
tioned in that letter, would the Commission consider a proposition^ 
If we amended that letter by increasing the amount. 


78 


Mr. Sinkler: Whatever new proposition you may make the Com¬ 
mission will be glad to pass upon it and approve or disapprove it. 

Mr. Elliott: If there are any objectionable terms in that letter 
which the Commission thinks should be revised, we stand ready to 
consider the revision of them, subject to all of the claims of privi¬ 
leges in the letter, and in exactly the same manner and method as 
made in the letter, we make the proposition to the Commission that 
that sum of $50,000 be increased to $75,000—the total amount in the 
letter. 

Mr. Sinkler: Is that the present concrete proposition ? 

Mr. Elliott: Yes, sir. 

The Commission requested that the proposition be put in writing 
and this was done. Letter follows: 

“Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. 

To Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, Chairman, and the 
Members of the Canal Commission Under the Act of March 
12, 1917, Columbia, S. C. 

Gentlemen: Referring to its letter of April 25, 1917, containing a 
previous offer of compromise, made by the Columbia Railway, Gas 
& Electric Company, this company would, subject to the terms and 
conditions of such letter and claiming all privileges set forth therein, 
make a further offer by striking out the amount of $50,(X)0 offered in 
such letter and inserting in lieu thereof the sum of $75,000, so that 
said offer would be an offer of $75,000 under the terms, conditions 
and privileges of such letter of April 25th. 

This company would earnestly request the Commission to advise 
it if any of the terms and conditions contained in such letter of April 
25th are objectionable, because this company feels that if the amount 
now offered is satisfactory, an agreement can be reached as to the 
terms and conditions, and will be glad to co-operate with the Com¬ 
mission to accomplish such agreement. 

Very respectfully, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

By Its Attorneys, Wm. Elliott, J. B. S. Lyles.” 

Mr. Liles: Mr. Elliott, is this your final proposition? 

Mr. Elliott: Yes, sir. 

The Commission, after going into executive session to consider the 
above proposition, addressed the following letter to the attorneys for 
the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company: 



79 


“Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. 

Messrs. Wm. Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, Attorneys for Columbia 
Railway, Gas & Electric Co., Columbia, S. C. 

Gentlemen: We have given careful and mature consideration to 
the proposition contained in your letter of this date, and after due 
deliberation, we feel that the acceptance of such an offer would be 
in derogation of the rights of the State, and are constrained to reject 
the same. 

Regretting that we could not arrive at an amicable adjustment of 
this matter, we are. 

Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Chairman.’’ 

Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. 

Messrs. Thomas H. Peeples, N. Christensen, Jesse W. Boyd, J. T. 
Liles and Huger Sinkler, Commissioners Appointed Under the 
Act to Declare That the Columbia Canal, Etc., Shall Revert to 
the State. 

Gentlemen: The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., is tne 
owner of a site upon the Columbia Canal and of water power derived 
therefrom. This site and this water power were acauired from the 
Columbia Mills, to whom they were sold and conveyed by the Colum¬ 
bia Water Power Company by deeds dated in 1894. The sales were 
made tinder the ample power of sale contained in the Act of Decem¬ 
ber 24, 1887; and the Columbia Mills was located near the canal 
with a capacity of thirty thousand spindles in response to the invita¬ 
tion extended in the Act of 1887, and in reliance upon the power of 
sales therein contained. The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., 
therefore, submits that if there has been any forfeiture of the 
Columbia Canal properties, such forfeiture does not extend to the 
land and the water power so bona fide sold and purchased in reli¬ 
ance upon said Act. It, therefore, asks that the Commission will 
recognize and confirm its title to the said site and water power, sub¬ 
ject to the approval of the Legislature of South Carolina. 

Respectfully, 

HOWARD BAETJER, 

President. 

Columbia, S. C., August 10, 1917. 

The Commission met in the office of the Attorney General in 
response to the call of the Chairman, at 10 a. m., August 10, 1917. 


80 


All members of the Commission were present. On motion, reading 
of minutes of last meeting was dispensed with. 

Hon. H. H. Evans, of Newberry, appeared before the Commis¬ 
sion, on behalf of his constituents, urging the Commission to take 
over the canal. 

The Attorneys for the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, 
came before the Commission and reported what had been done rela¬ 
tive to making re-entry on behalf of the State. Copies of notices 
of re-entry and other papers pertaining to the authorized proceed¬ 
ings were ordered incorporated in the minutes. 

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted; 

Resolved, That the Commission hereby authorize and empower 
the Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, as Chairman of the Commission, on 
behalf of the Commission, to re-enter and take actual possession of 
the property of the State of South Carolina, known as the Columbia 
Canal, and all property thereon and connected herewith, under 
uthority of an Act entitled Act to declare that the Columbia 
Canal, and its appurtenances, and the interest of the State in and to 
the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act 
entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Colum¬ 
bia Canal to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with 
the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develo]> 
the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or 
amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on 
account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, 
and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, 
control, disposal or sale of said canal.” We have this day attached 
our signatures to the notice of re-entry. 

Resolved, That the counsel for the Commission are hereby author¬ 
ized, on behalf of the Commission, to communicate with the Colum¬ 
bia Duck Mills in regard to their letter of June 11, 1917, and advise 
them of the position of the Commission. 

Resolved, That in the event the parties in possession of the Colum¬ 
bia Canal and its appurtenances shall surrender the said Columbia 
Canal and its appurtenances peaceably and in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act relative thereto, that suitable agents, contrac¬ 
tors and other persons necessary for the temporary operation anrl 
care of said canal and its appurtenances, be employed by the Attor¬ 
ney General, upon such terms and for such compensation as he may 
deem advisable, subject to the ratification of the majority of the 


81 


officers constituting the Commission. That in the meantime the 
Attorney General be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive from 
the Columbia Duck Mill such rental or compensation for the use of 
the water power that said corporation has heretofore been paying 
for use of water power under the terms of its original contract, and 
that the said Attorney General do pay, out of funds received from 
said corporation, the necessary charges of such agents, contractors, 
and other persons necessary to operate and care for said canal and 
its appurtenances. 

Mr. T. B. Pearce, representing the wholesale merchants of Colum¬ 
bia, came before the Commission and urged the importance of the 
completion of the canal. 

Mr. Thornwell McMaster came before the Commission and urged 
the completion of the canal for the benefit of the agricultural inter¬ 
ests of the State, and in order that exceedingly cheap power might 
be received. 

The Commission adjourned at 1:20, subject to the call of the 
Chairman. 


August 10th, 1917. 

To Columbia 'Railway, Gas & Electric Company, a Corporation 
Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of South 
Carolina; Mr. Edwin Wales Robertson, President; Mr. A. L. 
Kenyon, General Manager, and the Board of Directors of Said 
Company. 

Gentlemen: The undersigned, the Attorney General of the State 
of South Carolina, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 
Senate, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of 
Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the 
Senate, and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of 
the House of Representatives, acting under the authority of an Act, 
entitled, 

“An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appurte¬ 
nances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, 
authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incor¬ 
porate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to 
the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held there¬ 
with, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved 
December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, 
shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation 
of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions 


82 


relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of 
said canal,” approved the 12th day of March, A. D. 1917, who, 
under Section 2 of said Act, were empowered, authorized and 
directed, or a majority of them, ninety (90) days after the approval 
of said Act, to make such re-entry for and in behalf of the State as 
may be necessary and proper under the circumstances, and to take 
such steps as may be lawful and proper in the premises to obtain 
possession and control of the property of the said Columbia Canal, 
its appurtenances and the land held therewith, and the improvements 
placed thereon by those in possession, which have become a part and 
parcel of said canal, unless the claimants enter into arrangements 
satisfactory to said officers as therein provided; and, to take such 
possession, control, and direction of the development of the water 
power originally contemplated by said Acts, and to dispose of the 
same, in such way as they may deem advisable and proper, for the 
interest of the State—the said time limited in said Act having 
expired, do declare, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 
of the same, that the right, title and interest of the State to the said 
Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, 
so transferred by virtue of said Acts, have been forfeited and 
reverted to the State; and, we, representing the State of South Caro¬ 
lina, having accorded to you, who have heretofore and do now claim 
possession of said Columbia Canal, and, after due notice given to 
you to make satisfactory arrangements as may be approved by the 
undersigned as officers of the State, and satisfactory to them, and 
having failed to do so, do make demand upon you for the posses¬ 
sion, control of said property therein specifically set forth and 
described and do hereby give you notice that they will, upon the 
20th day of August, A. D. 1917, at twelve o’clock noon, make 
re-entry upon and in behalf of the State and take possession and 
control of said property; and that you, your agents and servants, 
from now on cease to take or have any management or control of 
said property, and do surrender the possession of same peacefully 
and in a proper manner to the said undersigned, chargeable by the 
said Act with the possession, management, control and direction, 
and development of the water power, and for carrying out the com¬ 
pletion of the Canal for navigable purposes, as contemplated by the 
aforesaid Acts and dispose of the same in such way as they may 
deem advisable and proper for the interest of the State. 

And you are further notified that any attempt upon your part, 
your officers, agents and employees, to interfere with, impede, 


83 


obstruct the possession, control and management of said property 
as authorized by provisions of the Act approved March 12th, 1917, 
or in any manner trespass upon said property after the re-entry 
made by us mentioned in this notice, shall be considered and treated 
as a trespass. 

To this notice of re-entry we have hereunto affixed our signatures 
as officers of the State of South Carolina as members of said Com¬ 
mittee, this tenth day of August, A. D. 1917. 

(Signed) TIIOS. H. PEEPLES, 
Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. 

(Signed) HUGER SINKLER, 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. 

(Signed) JESSE W. BOYD, 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

(Signed) NIELS CHRISTENSEN, 
Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate. 

(Signed) J, T. LILES, 

Chairman of the Wavs and Means Committee of the House of 
Representatives. 


Columbia, S. C., December 4, 1917. 

Pursuant to call of the Chairman, the Commission met Tuesdav, 
December 4th, at 12 o’clock, in the office of the Attorney General. 
Members of the Commission present were: Messrs. Peeples, Sinkler, 
Boyd and Liles. 

Minutes of the meeting of June 11th and August 10th were read 
and approved. Following letters were read and ordered incorpo¬ 
rated in the minutes. 

“Columbia, S. C., August 14, 1917. 
Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General of the State of South 
Carolina; 

Hon. Huger Sinkler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 
Senate; 

Hon. Jesse W. Boyd, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 
House of Representatives; 

Hon. Niels Christensen, Chairman of the Finance Committee of 
the Senate; 

Hon. J. T. Liles, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of 
the House of Representatives, constituting the Canal Com¬ 
mission and individually. 


84 


Dear Sirs: The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, by 
its attorneys thereunto duly authorized, acknowledges your letter of 
August 10th, and respectfully advises you that it denies in toto 
your claims concerning the Columbia Canal. 

The company further warns and notifies each of you to refrain 
from interfering with or trespassing upon its possession, manage¬ 
ment or control of the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and 
notifies you that it will hold each of you personally and individually 
responsible for any interference with or trespass committed upon 
its property or possession. 

The company further advises you that said Act of 1917, to which 
you refer and under which you claim authority, is null and void 
because it violates the Constitutions of the United States and of 
South Carolina. 

Very respectfully, 

COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

By Wm. Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, Its Attorneys.” 

“Columbia, S. C., August 20, 1917. 
Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Messrs. Wm. Elliott 
and J. B. S. Lyles, Its Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Gentlemen; We acknowledge receipt of your letter of date the 
14th instant. 

In pursuance.of oUr notification to you, of date the 10th instant, 
and in view of your reply thereto, of the 14th instant, we hereby 
notify you that the Commission appointed by the State of South 
Carolina claims possession and control of the property described 
in said Act and in said letter to you; and for and in behalf of the 
State of South Carolina claim possession and control of said prop¬ 
erty from and after twelve (12) o’clock noon of the present day, 
and that the re-entry mentioned in paragraph 2 of said Act has, by 
reason of the notice heretofore served upon you and of your reply 
thereto, have performed the direction of said Act in such way as is 
proper under the circumstances. Therefore, the State of South 
Carolina, by and through us, in its behalf, claim the possession and 
control of said property, its development and disposal in accordance 
with the terms and provisions of said Act. 

Very respectfully. 


THOS. H. PEEPLES, 


85 


Attorney General of S. C,. for Himself and Other Members of the 
Committee on Columbia Canal. 

The attorneys for the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, 
came before the Commission and made report as follows: 

“Mr. Chairman: After receipt of the letter from the Columbia 
Railway, Gas & Electric Company, of date August 14, 1917, Mr. 
Lyon and myself conferred with the Attorney General as to the 
proper .course under the Act to be pursued. In view of that letter 
and of the situation, the letter of August 20, 1917, which has been 
read, was sent. 

We were informed that the officers of the Columbia Railway, Gas 
& Electric Company, with others, had gone down to the canal prop¬ 
erty, at its entrance on Gervais street, to resist any peaceable and 
quiet, physical re-entry; that is to say, any going upon the property 
in accordance with their letter of August 14. Upon full considera¬ 
tion of the terms of the Act, which reads ho make such re-entry 
for and on behalf of the State as may be necessary and proper 
under the circumstances,’ we considered it unnecessary for the Attor¬ 
ney General and the officers of the Legislature to commit any breach 
of the peace, and that such letter was to the effect that it relieved 
us from any further attempt to make any physical entry upon the 
property, so that it gave us sufficient legal grounds to bring the suit, 
which the Act contemplated by Section 2—that we should take such 
steps as should be legal and proper in the premises to regain control 
of the Columbia Canal and the improvements placed thereon by 
those in possession, which has become a part and parcel of the said 
canal. 

The authority of our own State, that is to say, the decisions of 
our own State, fully justify and support the position that we took— 
that we are not called upon, nor is any private citizen called upon, 
to forcibly make re-entry if the other party forbids it. We have 
<lone sufficient to maintain this action to recover possession. Pecu¬ 
liarly is it true that the officers of the State should not set the 
example of a breach of the peace. 

We have, therefore, at as early an opportunity as the conditions 
and circumstances of the case permitted, drawn up a complaint for 
the recovery of the possession of that property, which we desire to 
■ present to the Commission if it is now ready to hear it and approve 
it and direct us to have it served.” 

The complaint as prepared by the attorneys was submitted to the 
Commission and, upon discussion, the attorneys were authorized by 


86 


the Commission to serve the complaint as read on or before Monday, 
December 10th. 

The following letters were ordered incorporated in the minutes: 

“Columbia, S. C., December 3, 1917. 
Mr. C. S. Monteith, Attorney for the City of Columbia, Columbia, 

s. c. 

Dear Sir: You will recall that when you appeared before this 
Committee on April 17, last, you were partially examined as to the 
interest the City of Columbia had in the canal and the contracts 
with regard to furnishing its power. You were then unprepared 
to produce any contract made by the city with the Columbia Rail 
way, Gas & Electric Company with regard to the furnishing of 
water for use within the Penitentiary, but stated you would 
endeavor to look into the matter and get up the exact status of how 
this matter stood. 

Our examination shows that the City of Columbia was entitled, 
under the conveyance to the Columbia Water Power Company, to 
six hundred horse power of water power from the canal. What we 
wish to know from the city is whether that supply of water power 
has been furnished at its power station, or whether it has been com¬ 
muted by contract to an electric power and from whence this 
electric power is furnished to the city for its city buildings and for 
lighting the streets. These matters, I assume, of course, are in 
writing and are in the archives or records kept by the City Council or 
its proper officer. To be precise, we want to know whether this elec¬ 
tric current for lighting is furnished to the city from Parr Shoals 
or from power produced by water from the canal. 

Further, we desire to know upon what amount, if not all, of the 
bonds issued in 1888 by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia 
Canal the city has, prior *to the year 1914, paid the interest directlv 
or through the Cofumbia Water Power Company, or its conveyee, 
the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, or the former 
company whose name was changed to that just above stated. 

Further, if there has been any retirement of these bonds by the 
Board of Trustees, or by the Columbia Water Power Company, or 
by the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company; and if the citv 
holds any of the canal bonds as owner or otherwise. Further, 
whether or not any of the collateral placed in the hands of the 
Trustees of the Columbia Water Power Company are West Shore 


87 


bonds and if so, have they been decreased and when and how, giving 
us the time when, if taken down, and for what reason. 

We would like to have these matters made of record in a formal 
report and not made orally, as it is our duty to report these matters 
to the Legislature in the proper shape and manner and that is what 
we understood you stated you would furnish as well as all other 
information you could gather. 

The Commission meets tomorrow, the 4th, at twelve o’clock, and 
we would like to have this information to lay before them. 

So that the matter may be formal, we send copy of this letter to 
the Mayor. 


Yours very truly, 


THOS. H. PEEPLES, 

Attorney General. 


Copy to Hon. L. A. Griffith, Mayor of the City of Columbia, 
Columbia, S. C.” 

“Columbia, S. C., December 4, 1917. 

Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, South Caro¬ 
lina. 

In re Columbia Canal. 


Dear Sir: I have your esteemed favor of December 3d, and will 
advise as follows: 

With reference to the question of a contract between the City of 
Columbia and the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, 
with regard to furnishing water for use within the Penitentiary, 
beg to advise that I have made diligent search and inquiry, but can¬ 
not find any record of any such contract having been made by the 
city. I presume that you refer to the 500 H. P. of water power 
which was reserved by the State of South Carolina for the use of the 
South Carolina Penitentiary. If so, I think you will find that the 
South Carolina Penitentiary, during the year 1892, entered into a 
contract with the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power 
Company for the utilization of this 500 H. P. (See 21st Statutes, 
page 94.) This contract was made directly between the directors 
of the South Carolina Penitentiary and the Columbia Electric Street 
Railway, Light & Power Company. The City of Columbia was not 
a party to the contract, and in so far as I have been able to ascertain, 
had nothing whatever to do with it. 

With regard to the water power to which the City of Columbia is 
entitled, as I understand it, the Act of the General Assemblv 


88 


reserved 500 H. P. of water power for the City of Columbia, and the 
Columbia Water Power Company agreed with the Board of Trus¬ 
tees of the Columbia Canal, when the said canal was transferred to 
them, that they would allow, free of charge, whenever the city 
should require it, for its use, an additional 100 H. P. of water 
power to the 500 H. P. given by the Act to the City of Columbia. 
A supply of water has been furnished to the City of Columbia at its 
power station. The city owns its own machinery and develops its 
own power. I am advised by the City Superintendent of Water 
Works that they have never developed the full 600 H. P. of water 
power—in other words, we are permitted to take the water from 
the canal with which to develop the power, and this power is used 
by the city in the operation of its water works plant, that is, the 
pumping machines, etc. 

The City of Columbia is not supplied with any electric power or 
current whatsoever for the lighting of its streets or its buildings, 
except such current as it pays for, the same as any other user of 
electricity in the city. We pay so much a year for each arc light, 
and for the lighting of the city streets, and we have the regular 
meter systems in the buildings. I am unable to advise whether or 
not the electric current supplied us for lighting the city comes from 
Parr Shoals or from the power plant on the canal bank. 

With reference to the payment of the interest upon the bonds 
prior to 1914, I would advise that the city has regularly paid the 
interest on all of the bonds, to wit: $200,000.00. The bonds were 
issued in 1888, and for the years 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1891, the city 
paid this interest directly. In January, 1892, the canal was trans¬ 
ferred to the Columbia Water Power Company, and since that time 
that company, or its conveyee, has furnished the money with which 
the city has paid the interest; in other words, prior to 1892 the city 
itself paid the interest without reimbursement from anyone. Since 
that time, it has paid the interest with money furnished by the said 
Columbia Water Power Company, or its conveyee. 

With regard to the question of the retirement of these bonds, 1 
will say that, in so far as the city knows or is informed, none of the 
bonds have been retired. The city does not hold any of the canal 
bonds as owner or otherwise. With reference to collateral placed 
in trust by the Columbia Water Power Company to guarantee or 
insure the payment of the interest, to wit: The West Shore bonds, 
I would state that the West Shore bonds were taken down and other 
bonds substituted in lieu thereof under a resolution of the Citv 


89 


Council passed on the 12th day of January, 1909, a copy of which 
resolution I hand you herewith. 

I trust I have given you the information you desired. If, how¬ 
ever, there is anything further I can do, or any further informatioii 
I can give, I shall be very pleased to do so. 


Very respectfully yours. 


C. S. MONTEITH, 
City Attorney.” 


RESOLUTION. 


‘'Resolved, By the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Columbia : 
That The Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York and the 
National Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia, are hereby author 
ized and directed to deliver to Edwin W. Robertson, President and 
Treasurer of the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and 
Power Company, the West Shore Railroad Company four per cent, 
gold bonds deposited with the said corporations under the agree¬ 
ments of the seventh day of January, 1892; that is to say, that The 
Farmers Loan and Trust Company deliver eighty-two thousand 
dollars ($82,CC0.C0) of said bonds, and the National Loan and 
Exchange Bank of Columbia eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00) 

' of said bonds, and that the City Clerk and Treasurer do issue an 
order upon the said companies for the said bonds, with a certified 
copy of this resolution attached, directing that they be delivered to 
the said Edwin W. Robertson, President and Treasurer of the 
Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, as 
soon as the said Edwin W. Robertson, President and Treasurer of 
the Columbia Street Railway, Light and Power Company, shall 
have delivered to the said The Farmers Loan and Trust Company 
of New York, $35,000.00, par value, of the first mortgage 5 per 
cent, gold bonds of the said the Columbia Street Railway, Light and 
Power Company, dated July 1, 1905, and to the National Loan and 
Exchange Bank of Columbia $15,000.00, par value, of the samt" 
bonds, which bonds shall be in substitution for, and to take the place 
of, the said West Shore bonds, and to be deposited subject in all 
respects to the terms of the said agreements of the 7th day of Janu¬ 
ary, 1892, under which agreements the said West Shore bonds were 
deposited with the said The Farmers Loan and Trust Company and 
the National Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia. 

It is further resolved, That the first mortgage five per cent, gold 
bonds of the Columbia Street Railway, Light and Power Company, 


90 


which are to be substituted in place of the said West Shore Railway 
Company bonds, shall be examined by the said City Clerk and Treas¬ 
urer before the same are deposited with the said The Farmers Loan 
and Trust Company and the National Loan and Exchange Bank of 
Columbia, and upon being deposited with the depositaries, shall be 
accompanied by a certificate from said City Clerk and Treasurer to 
the efifect that the bonds so presented to said depositaries are the 
first mortgage five per cent, bonds of the Columbia Electric Street 
Railway, Light and Power Company, which are to be substituted in 
lieu of the West Shore Railway Company four per cent, gold bonds 
deposited with the said corporation under the agreements of the 7tl:i 
of January, 1892.” 

Adopted January 12, 1909. 

Mr. Peeples advised the Commission that it had been found 
necessary to employ some one to inspect the canal property and 
report the physical condition of same. The services of Mr. Alfred 
Wallace were secured and the remuneration agreed upon, subject 
to the approval of the Commission, was $200.00. Mr. Wallace is to 
render such further service as the Commission may require of him. 
Mr. Peeples stated that he was advised by the attorneys that such 
inspection and report was absolutely necessary. Report of Mr. 
Wallace follows: 


“Columbia, S. C., November 27, 1917. 
Report of the Condition of the Columbia Canal by Alfred Wal¬ 
lace. 


THE DAM. 


■ The dam across Broad River, at the head of the Columbia Canal, 
is a crib dam, made up of 10 by 10 timber, in 16-foot squares, filled 
in with rock and floored with 6 by 6 by 6 by 8 timber. The flooring 
in five places is gone; three other places, one plank each, and the 
other two places three or four planks. The dam in several places 
is out of line. The timber in the dam is well preservevd. Seven 
cribs went out of this dam in the freshet of 1916. 

THE LOCKS. 

The locks are of granite construction, with 4' gates. There is a 
boat-way around the locks, leading into the river, which is stopped 
up with an old flat-boat. This completely blocks this opening. The 


91 


lock-house is a frame structure, with metal roof and sides. The 
metal has rusted out, leaving holes in the roof and sides of the 
building, exposing the gate timber and iron to the weather. 

THE CANAL BANK. 

On the west side of the canal bank, near one of the piers of the 
C., N. & L. trestle, there is a hole in the bank 2 feet wide, 4 feet 
long. The riprap on the bank from this point up the canal bank 
is washed up in places, and in seveial places the bank has settled. 
The new bank that was put in after the 1915 freshet is being washed 
by rains. This bank has also settled in places. 

There are two bridges across the canal, one at the Duck Mill and 
one at the city water works. The city gets its power from its pump¬ 
ing station on the canal. The city has a steam plant operated on the 
east side of the canal bank. The bridge over the wasteway, near the 
city water works, is in bad condition. The first power house that 
was put in on the canal was in the rear of the Penitentiary. This 
power site was owned by the State and was leased to the Street 
Railway Company from the State when J. Q. Marshall was president 
of the company. The Street Railway Company pays monthly bills, 
for the use of this power. This plant has been dismantled by the 
present owners of the Street Railway Company. The Duck Mill 
gets its power from the canal and also power from the Street Rail¬ 
way Company. The Duck Mill’s plant is operated by themselves, 
and is of 1,800 horse power, for which they pay the Street Rail¬ 
way Company $6 per month for horse power. The Columbia 
Railway, Gas & Electric Company has a pumping station near the 
Duck Mill, from which they use water from the canal for their 
steam plant. The water in the canal from the Duck Mill power 
plant to Gervais street is very quiet, causing a deposit of mud in the 
canal in front of the Street Railway power plant. The tailrace of 
the Street Railway power plant is being filled up with mud and 
sand. 

distribution of power. 

Power is distributed from this plant, and from the other plants 
of the Street Railway Company to the city of Columbia, the Elec¬ 
tric Railway, five cotton mills, four phosphate mills, three cotton 
seed oil mills, the State buildings and Camp Jackson. 

The Street Railway Company has made a new contract with the 
City of Columbia for furnishing power. The City Treasurer, Mr., 


92 


Cooper, could not show me this contract because the contract had 
been sent to the Street Railway Company to be signed, and has not 
yet been returned. They pay more for use of the power under this 
contract than they did under their old contract. 

Since 1914 the power in Columbia and vicinity has increased very 
much. The power plant of the Olympia Mills has been taken over; 
the Swift plant has increased its plant considerable; the Palmetto 
Cotton Mills, the Carolina Veneer Company, a new concern, takes 
considerable power. All of the cotton seed oil mills have increased 
their plants, four stone cutting sheds have been established since 
1914. 

In October of 1916, the City of Columbia paid the Street Railway 
Company $2,325.00 for power. In October, 1917, they paid 
$2,448.00. 

There are seventeen towers on the canal banks, from the city 
limits down to Gervais street, that carry the power from Parr 
vShoals, but I believe that line is owned by the Street Railway Com¬ 
pany from the city limits.” 

At 2:35 the Commission adjourned subject to the call of the 
Chairman. 


Columbia, S. C., December 28th, 1916. 

Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23d 
inst., and replying thereto will say that during the last five days I 
licive made a careful examination of the Columbia Canal—dams, 
lock heads, canal locks, the water ways and power houses. I find 
that the freshet this spring blew out about seven pen stocks in the 
dam. These have been repaired, but all of the repairing has been 
done out of the cheapest and most inferior material, evidently only 
for very temporary purposes. 

All of the caretakers of the canal have been discharged and there 
is no keeper at the locks and the keepers’ houses where they for¬ 
merly stayed are all vacant. 

There is no one to keep the operators of the various power houses 
informed as to the shutting down or opening of the gates that con¬ 
trols the water that enters through the lock gates into the prism of 
the canal. 

The gates at the head of the canal are in a very defective con¬ 
dition. The house covering the machinery at this lock head is 



93 


exceedingly defective and affords no protection whatever against the 
weather. In case of a sudden swell in the river and absence of the 
caretakers at these critical points, would lay this property liable to 
very great damage and almost certain ruin. For instance, if logs 
boating in the river should pass the “log boom way” and become fas¬ 
tened in the gates at the lock head, before they could be removed 
they would invite disaster. 

It does not appear that there has been an effort to make away with 
any valuable generators or machinery in the main power house, 
which is located on the north side of Gervais Street, but there are 
no topis, implements or applicances on hand necessary to keep the 
canal in a proper condition. The dredge formerly used has been 
allowed to decay and become useless and the passage of the canal 
has been allowed to be so obstructed that a dredge necessary for 
keeping it open can not pass along its course. I am advised that at 
least one of the obstructions to the navigation of the canal has been 
permitted in consideration of the payment of fifteen hundred 
($1,500.00) dollars. So it is that the means of keeping up the 
banks and flushing out the mud and sands in the channels of the 
canal have become of no service and no other means has been pro¬ 
vided to accomplish such necessary purposes. 

The lower reaches of the canal have been allowed to fill with 
sand and mud until the lower or main power house, located on the 
north side of Gervais street, with its six generators, in my opinion, 
is completely out of use. The prism of the canal at this point, which 
is the foot of the canal, is completely stopped up with mud, sand 
and silt until it is not in fact a power house at the present time. 
For the past three months this power house has been in disuse and, 
upon information and belief, I would say that for nine months 
certainly not more than one of these units or turbine wheels could 
have been used. 

The pond on Broad River, three miles above Columbia, at the dam 
is being allowed to steadily fill up with silt and sand. The gates 
in the dam have become so obstructed with mud and sand that they 
can be removed only with great expense and great difficulty and 
the filling in of the pond has been so great that the danger of the 
canal receiving high floods of the river has become very great. I 
am informed that during the past year during the July freshet, the 
rise of the river eighteen inches in excess of that which actually 
happened would have turned such floods of water into the canal, 
as would have practically wiped it out. The danger of a happening 


94 


■of this nature can only be prevented by the pond and entrance to 
the canal being kept reasonably free from the natural accumula¬ 
tions of mud, sand and silt, which has not been done for some 
years past. 

During the course of the past six years the present holders of 
the canal have acquired falls above Columbia and have bought and 
equipped the Parr Shoals, twenty-six (26) miles above the city. 
Transmission lines from these shoals have been erected along the 
right of way of the canal for the purpose of furnishing electric 
power for purposes heretofore supplied from the Columbia Canal. 

No work whatever has been done towards completing the canal 
from Gervais street towards Rocky Branch, the terminus of the 
canal as originally contemplated, and which, if completed, would 
more than double the present power capable of being obtained from 
the power house at its present location and which would afiford 
means and facilities of navigation from Congaree River in and to 
the canal and into Broad River. 

I think the above covers the questions referred to in your letter 
of the 23d inst. 

Yours respectfully, 

THORNWELL McMASTER. 


WAR DEPARTMENT, 

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, 

P. O. BUILDING, 

Columbia, S. C., February 7th, 1917. 
Mr. T. C. Williams, Columbia, S. C. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiries and statements about the 
relation of the present lock and dam to the future development of 
traffic on Congaree River, I would not claim that the lock and dam 
are the best or most satisfactory solution of the difficulties of the 
upper river. They do not change the danger from sudden freshets 
nor the inconvenience due to rapid changes in stage of the river. 
A rapidly rising or falling river will always cause trouble in unload¬ 
ing boats. You are also right in saying that there is no safe place 
to leave boats or barges tied up temporarily for repairs or other 
reasons. 



95 


There is no doubt that a canal protected from high water would 
afford a safe harbor at all stages of the river and give a chance, for 
large developments in warehouses. I agree with you that such a har¬ 
bor is of great importance in the building of satisfactory terminals 
and has many advantages over the present arrangement, or over 
any possible arrangement on the open river. There is also no doubt 
that certain difficulties would be avoided if the canal entered the 
river below the present dam, thus avoiding operation of any dam. 
There is no reason to believe that a lock at the end of the canal 
would give more trouble than the present lock which has had little 
trouble except from extreme floods. Locks above the level of high 
water would be safe from such troubles. 

There are many advantages of a canal and lock in place of the 
river dam and lock besides those mentioned, but I trust I have 
leplied with sufficient clearness to show that, valuing the present 
locks and dam for what they have done and can do, I am none the 
less aware of their inherent deficiencies, and would gladly see any 
improvements made which would insure to Columbia better ter^ 
minals and an enlargement of river traffic. 

I have made these statements to others who have asked me about 
the river, and you are at liberty to use this letter as you may wish. 

Yours very truly. 


(Signed) W. O. WHITESCARVER, 

Asst. Engineer. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOS. H. PEEPLES, 


Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. 

HUGER SINKLER, 

Chairman of Judiciary Committee of Senate. 


JESSE W. BOYD, 

Chairman Judiciary Committee of House of Representatives. 

NIELS CHRISTENSEN, 
Chairman Finance Committee of Senate. 


J. T. LILES, 

Chairman Ways and Means Committee of House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 






















r 


• A 

1 












V .» 





/ 





V‘ '.-^■' 
'* ■ ‘':V 


r* 


I 


TV ' 


4 ^ 

1^' 


I 




> 


I 



If 

^ ♦. t 






'•* 



f 

i , 


4 




‘4 


o. 






! *' 

^ »- 

W 




’V j 









1 . 




X 








I i 


4 





*1- Vi 




% 


4 


\ 






































































